Reviews in American History

1.1k papers and 2.2k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.1k papers published in Reviews in American History in the last decades have received a total of 2.2k indexed citations. Papers published in Reviews in American History usually cover Sociology and Political Science (286 papers), Political Science and International Relations (205 papers) and History (106 papers) specifically the topics of American Constitutional Law and Politics (143 papers), Race, History, and American Society (135 papers) and American History and Culture (100 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Reviews in American History are Daniel T. Rodgers, Carl N. Degler, David Rosner, Herbert Hill, Martin V. Melosi, Thomas J. McCormick, Julian E. Zelizer, Thomas K. McCraw, Jon C. Teaford and Eric Arnesen.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Reviews in American History

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Reviews in American History. 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 Reviews in American History.

Countries where authors publish in Reviews in American History

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Reviews in American History. 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 Reviews in American History with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Reviews in American History 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