Countries where authors publish in Nova law review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Nova law review. 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 Nova law review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Nova law review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Nova law review. 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 Nova law review.
About Nova law review
The 235 papers published in Nova law review in the last decades have received a total of 430 indexed citations . Papers published in Nova law review usually cover Law (64 papers), Political Science and International Relations (97 papers) and Accounting (17 papers) specifically the topics of Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (64 papers), Legal Education and Practice Innovations (28 papers), Law, Rights, and Freedoms (20 papers), Legal and Constitutional Studies (17 papers), Business Law and Ethics (12 papers), International Law and Human Rights (12 papers), Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare (10 papers) and Law in Society and Culture (10 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Nova law review are Bruce J. Winick, Deirdre K. Mulligan, Duncan Kennedy, Joel Seligman, Sharon A. Williams, Anthony Chase, Derrick Bell, Kurt M. Dubowski, Richard H. Weisberg and Thomas O. McGarity.
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.