New Review of Academic Librarianship

473 papers and 3.2k indexed citations i.

About

The 473 papers published in New Review of Academic Librarianship in the last decades have received a total of 3.2k indexed citations. Papers published in New Review of Academic Librarianship usually cover Information Systems (240 papers), Library and Information Sciences (204 papers) and Education (95 papers) specifically the topics of Library Science and Information Literacy (185 papers), Web and Library Services (131 papers) and Library Science and Administration (88 papers). The most active scholars publishing in New Review of Academic Librarianship are Graham Walton, John Cox, Jessica Bates, Blaise Cronin, Claire Creaser, Valérie Spezi, Deborah Harrop, Lucy A. Tedd, Mark Hepworth and Leo Appleton.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in New Review of Academic Librarianship

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in New Review of Academic Librarianship. 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 New Review of Academic Librarianship.

Countries where authors publish in New Review of Academic Librarianship

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in New Review of Academic Librarianship. 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 New Review of Academic Librarianship with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites New Review of Academic Librarianship more than expected).

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
2025