Countries where authors publish in The Pacific Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in The Pacific 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 The Pacific Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Pacific Review more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in The Pacific 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 The Pacific Review.
About The Pacific Review
The 1.2k papers published in The Pacific Review in the last decades have received a total of 15.1k indexed citations . Papers published in The Pacific Review usually cover Development (332 papers), Political Science and International Relations (750 papers) and General Economics, Econometrics and Finance (153 papers) specifically the topics of International Development and Aid (332 papers), International Relations and Foreign Policy (328 papers), Global trade and economics (126 papers), Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography (122 papers), Peacebuilding and International Security (110 papers), Asian Studies and History (110 papers), Socioeconomic Development in Asia (103 papers) and China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance (103 papers). The most active scholars publishing in The Pacific Review are Richard Stubbs, Amitav Acharya, Yong Wang, Duncan McCargo, Takashi Terada, Linda Weiss, John Ravenhill, Shaun Narine, Garry Rodan and Lee Jones.
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.