Tyndale Bulletin
- Topics
- Biblical Studies and InterpretationArchaeology and Historical StudiesHistorical and Linguistic Studies
In The Last Decade
Tyndale Bulletin
260 papers receiving 471 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 56
- Religious studies 651
- Sociology and Political Science 352
- Archeology 270
- Philosophy 84
- Development 77
Countries where authors publish in Tyndale Bulletin
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Tyndale Bulletin. 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 Tyndale Bulletin with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Tyndale Bulletin more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Tyndale Bulletin
This network shows the impact of papers published in Tyndale Bulletin. 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 Tyndale Bulletin.
About Tyndale Bulletin
The 546 papers published in Tyndale Bulletin in the last decades have received a total of 827 indexed citations . Papers published in Tyndale Bulletin usually cover Religious studies (453 papers), Archeology (215 papers) and Development (66 papers) specifically the topics of Biblical Studies and Interpretation (440 papers), Archaeology and Historical Studies (179 papers) and Historical and Linguistic Studies (151 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Tyndale Bulletin are Peter Oakes, Bruce W. Winter, Mark J. Boda, Russell T. Jones, David J. A. Clines, A. R. Millard, Colin J. Hemer, K. A. Kitchen, David Gill and Edwin M. Yamauchi.
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.