Modern Asian Studies

2.0k papers and 17.8k indexed citations

About

The 2.0k papers published in Modern Asian Studies in the last decades have received a total of 17.8k indexed citations. Papers published in Modern Asian Studies usually cover Sociology and Political Science (1.2k papers), Political Science and International Relations (900 papers) and Anthropology (523 papers) specifically the topics of South Asian Studies and Conflicts (317 papers), Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East (304 papers) and Chinese history and philosophy (294 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Modern Asian Studies are Sanjay Subrahmanyam, David Washbrook, Rosalind O’Hanlon, Francis Robinson, C. A. Bayly, Ronald Inden, Victor Lieberman, David Mosse, Tania Murray Li and Mick Moore.

In The Last Decade

Modern Asian Studies

1.7k papers receiving 13.4k citations

Countries where authors publish in Modern Asian Studies

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Modern Asian Studies. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers published in Modern Asian Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Modern Asian Studies more than expected).

Fields of papers published in Modern Asian Studies

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Modern Asian Studies. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Modern Asian Studies.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026