Countries where authors publish in The Missouri review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in The Missouri 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 Missouri 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 Missouri review more than expected).
Fields of papers published in The Missouri review
This network shows the impact of papers published in The Missouri 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 Missouri review.
About The Missouri review
The 417 papers published in The Missouri review in the last decades have received a total of 586 indexed citations . Papers published in The Missouri review usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (31 papers), Music (7 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (8 papers), History (15 papers) and Archeology (1 paper) specifically the topics of Poetry Analysis and Criticism (10 papers), American and British Literature Analysis (9 papers), Themes in Literature Analysis (7 papers), American Sports and Literature (6 papers), American Literature and Culture (5 papers), Musicology and Musical Analysis (5 papers), Race, History, and American Society (5 papers) and American Environmental and Regional History (5 papers). The most active scholars publishing in The Missouri review are Suzanne Juhasz, James C. VanderKam, Admir Barolli, Fatos Xhafa, Jamaica Kincaid, Leonard Barolli, Junzi Sun, Linda Hogan, Fang−Yie Leu and Yi‐Li Huang.
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.