Countries where authors publish in Renaissance Studies
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Renaissance 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 Renaissance Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Renaissance Studies more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Renaissance 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 Renaissance Studies.
About Renaissance Studies
The 882 papers published in Renaissance Studies in the last decades have received a total of 1.7k indexed citations . Papers published in Renaissance Studies usually cover Classics (204 papers), History (541 papers), Museology (85 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (75 papers) and Conservation (44 papers) specifically the topics of Renaissance and Early Modern Studies (240 papers), Reformation and Early Modern Christianity (189 papers), Historical Influence and Diplomacy (102 papers), Medieval Literature and History (98 papers), Renaissance Literature and Culture (86 papers), Historical Art and Culture Studies (82 papers), Historical and Religious Studies of Rome (80 papers) and Historical Economic and Social Studies (57 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Renaissance Studies are Brian Vickers, Sharon T. Strocchia, Elizabeth S. Cohen, Elaine Leong, Vivian Nutton, Benjamin G. Kohl, Peter Burke, David Fallows, Filippo de Vivo and M. E. Mallett.
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.