What are the most cited books in the social sciences?

cited

There is also this:

citations-figure-1

Here is the source, full text and explanation here.  There is much more of interest at that final link.

Comments

That's a pretty sweet reading list!

I disagree. This is a very populist reading list, with many predictable and to my mind overrated writers in it.

Or, "Why Students Lean to the Left, Exhibit #981A"

The number 2 economics book, by Oliver Williamson, is a leftist text? Are you sure?

Which is conveniently out numbered by Foucault, Freire and Marx.

It's amazing how quickly economists abandon the market - isn't this list just a reflection of market preferences?

The market for sociologists?

LOL...I crack myself up.

Yep. The Marxists, Pomos, and Weberians dominate, and the first two rarely do "real" empirical social science (Foucault's empirical work is an ironic joke).

Anon7, is your observation on Focualt based on careful reading of his work?

One would need a more expansive discourse on your construction of the rules for a "careful reading" of the nonexistent "author" to which you refer in order to play a little language game.

Williamson's book is not #2. It's #23.

Not that it matters. Williamson's book is about a very narrow topic that is only going to interest people in econ and business....98% of whom have never read the book either (or his other books and articles)

Keep in mind Google scholar looks at all citations around the world.

You can bet 95% of citations to Marx come from Europe.

Yes, people should read "The Theory of moral sentiments" more

Very true.

Unfortunately, Google Scholar is not really very reliable. It contains many weird phantom citations.

True. About half are working papers and conference presentations.

Some are just listings of other papers in the same working paper series.

The 10 most cited published before 1950 is interesting, if for no other reason than the books and authors are, well, famous (except for a couple). What have social scientists been doing since 1950?

Self-referential bubble spinning inwardly into nothingness?

Social sciences doesn't change as fast as physics or computing, etc. If most of the list were recent, I would be concerned that we had abandoned many important classics and were failing to learn from history or understand how we got where we are.

Also, the nature of incentives have changed. Publishing a ground breaking best seller that changes the course of history doesn't get you tenure. But a handful of publications in some decent journals does. It's not clear to me whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is clear that the leaning towards empirics and journal publication is imposing a cost on deeper reflection hashed out more completely.

I mean, how can you really break new ground in 40 pages? It happens, but sometimes it takes 800 pages to really cover all the angles.

In social sciences...everything has already been said.

Especially that :)

"The only books in the top 50 published within the last 20 years are Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone (2001), Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom (1999) and Etienne Wenger’s Communities of Practice (1999);" As a non-social scientist, I always encounter cognitive dissonance when seeing the value SS practitioners place on books (compared to peer-reviewed research (journal) articles). But then again, opinions are cheap.

It's hard to flesh out an entire exposition on man, society, history, how it all fits together, etc., before some additions about the present situation .... in 20 pages.

If you take out the hundreds of pages of placing it all in the historical, philosophical, etc., context, you're basically left with "uh, here's my idea..." or "so and so was pretty wrong/right about these kinds of points and here's why" and no one will have a clue why it's relevant without the hundreds of pages of discussion.

In science, you can become an important part of the intellectual and scientific progress by hunting out a specific unexplored area and publishing. I hear genomic analysis of fungi is almost completely unresearched. There are hundreds of thousands of quick and easy 10 page articles worth publishing over the next 100 years. There's no equivalent to that in social sciences because the quick and easy studies are always in a specific time, place, dataset, etc. and are liable to be "falsified" in a different time, place, dataset, etc..

I don't buy this explanation. Speaking as a professional mathematician, any question of even mild interest in mathematics can be put into a historical context that explains what made it interesting. The fields and methods developed along the way that got us to the precise question we're looking at. You could easily turn any math paper into a book by doing that.

Yet people don't, because "uh, here's my idea" is usually good enough --- professional mathematicians in the appropriate area know most of the context already.

How does your theory account for this?

David Deutsch and Steven Weinberg are right about "The Structure of Social Revolutions." Kuhn didn't describe how the sciences really work.

Deutsch: "Kuhn's theory suffers from a fatal flaw. It explains the succession from one paradigm to another in sociological or psychological terms, rather than as having primarily to do with the objective merit of the rival explanations. Yet unless one understands science as a quest for explanations, the fact that it does find successive explanations, each objectively better than the last, is inexplicable."

Weinberg: "Over the past forty years I have been involved in revolutionary changes in the way that physicists understand the elementary particles that are the basic constituents of matter. The greater revolutions of this century, quantum mechanics and relativity, were before my time, but they are the basis of the physics research of my generation. Nowhere have I seen any signs of Kuhn's incommensurability between different paradigms. Our ideas have changed, but we have continued to assess our theories in pretty much the same way:...I am only saying that whatever we mean, there have been no sudden changes in the way we assess theories, no changes that would make it impossible to compare the truth of theories before and after a revolution. "

'Kuhn didn’t describe how the sciences really work. '

Well, the point of the book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' was about scientists being people, oddly enough. That is, the idea that science is an activity independent of those involved in it is simply incorrect, and easily demonstrated as incorrect using historical examples.

'rather than as having primarily to do with the objective merit of the rival explanations'

Oddly enough, how one measures 'objective merit' is fascinating. After all, it took quite a while for numerous proofs of Einstein's ideas concerning general relativity - and yet, strangely enough, his ideas were accepted quickly, as noted here - 'At its introduction in 1915, the general theory of relativity did not have a solid empirical foundation. It was known that it correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury and on philosophical grounds it was considered satisfying that it was able to unify Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity. That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Science is not what logical positivists posited it to be - at least, that it what I learned decades ago at that notably left wing university called GMU.

Objective merit always wins out ! In the case of GR, where there was not a lot of proving or disproving evidence at the onset, because it was way ahead of its time, the logical consistency ( with special relativity), beauty and explanatory power of the theory may be the convincing factor (provisionally in the short term only ), but any " beautiful theory can be slain by one ugly fact ". The fact that our physical space may not be Euclidean wasn't so novel; Gauss had pondered such a thing in the late 1820s and had measured the sum of the angles made by the mountaintops of Hohenhagen, Brocken and Inselberg. He found no deviation from Pi ( GR predicts 10^-15 radians which is too small to be measured.) Today the GPS system would not be usable without the corrections from GR.

'Objective merit always wins out !'

But only in the long run - generally after the older cohort of scientists dies out.

'where there was not a lot of proving or disproving evidence at the onset, because it was way ahead of its time, the logical consistency'

What happened to 'objective merit?' 'Logical consistenty' is clearly not objective merit, as demonstrated ever so obviouly by the whole ether framework (or that of Ptolemiac epicycles, for that matter).

GR is a special case. It was hard to find much experimental evidence either way at the time. It wasn't a case of older scientists dying out for it to be accepted.

But the Standard Model in physics may be the exception that proves Kuhn's rule, as it's so ossified (think about it, compare to string theory)

The Rogers "Diffusion" book is good, it shows how culture shapes diffusion (example: lobster was considered 'poor prisoners food', and washing hands in the Third World was considered stupid, etc).

Surprised that book about how radical inventions cannibalize the sales of existing technology ("disruptive tech") is not on the list, nor the business management books by Drucker, only Porter makes the list.

Well, the notion of washing your hands with bacteria laden water before eating strikes me as not a very good idea.

@Troll me - but, if none of your neighbors are doing it--washing their hands that is--peer pressure means you won't do it either. For that reason, ghetto kids don't study at school, since it's "uncool".

But isn't "cool" and "uncool" genetically programmed? What sort of Marxist sociology are you pandering to? /sarc

It seems like much-cited books fall into a few quite different categories.

For example, Rogers' 1962 book "Diffusion of Innovations" is cited not because it's terribly controversial but because it's a pretty exhaustive and fair-minded analysis of a big topic that established many influential conventions for how to describe diffusion of innovations: terms like "Early Adopters," "Laggards," and so forth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

Other books are often cited in part because they offer short theses that are fun to argue over, such as Kuhn or Rawls.

Foucault was kind of a genius at making things that normally sound kind of boring -- Societies try different methods to deal with the problem of mentally illness -- sound really sinister.

Locking up non-dangerous people with zero due process, for being too different, is sinister.

People have this idea like mental wards are full of psychopaths, etc. But if you read "The Protest Psychosis", you will see descriptions like women getting declared as mentally ill and deprived of their liberty for years on end, upon complaints of their husband that they were too whiny and not doing the chores. Also, thousands of protesters being declared "schizophrenic" as a means of effectively imprisoning and forced medicating them when there was no legal cause to do so.

According to Scruton, in his reissued book on the new left, Foucault was just another left leaning writer setting up the straw men bourgeoisie in order to knock them down. The disparagement of various things tried by liberals or conservatives is universal in this "scholarship", and yet every attempt at leftist social engineering is forgiven as an understandable error.

Weinberg. What a gormless physicist.

Steve's use of Personal Anecdote could just as easily be used to _support_ Kuhn, "I haven't admitted to any change, so no change has happened." Henri Poincare finish out his career the same way, vis-a-vis relativity. And Henri was a much better mathematician - physicist than Weinberg. Also, it might just be possible, Steve that, your career didn't happen to span on of the "revolutions" Kuhn was talking about. An American Historian would use a different analysis frame work for 1750-1790 then for 1790 to 1850.

The Deutsch critique is more subtle. However, I think it still misses the point. "Objective merit," a deeply slippery concept even in the physical sciences, plays a role in which explanation the _next_ generation of scientists choose. However I have not read Deutsch, nor Kuhn in a very long term.

But contemporary physicists are aware of the same history of physics and astronomy that is central to Kuhn's paradigm theory, so they would be aware of how, say, Einstein revolutionized Newton as Kuhn is.

The bigger applications for Kuhn's lesson are in the softer, more politicized fields. Consider in contrast the big book that social scientists, deep down, fret over trying to not let anybody notice they worry over whether it belongs on this list: The Bell Curve.

Eventually, there will be a new paradigm in the social sciences that incorporates The Bell Curve, but it will be a long time coming, probably not until the Western social sciences are dominated by Chinese and Indian academics without the hang-ups and mental no-go zones of the Stephen Jay Gould generation of academics.

Steve - Exactly, Kuhn's observation is correct for fields in which objective truth is very difficult to define. No-one for instance was arguing that the transistor didn't work. But everyone can have a view on global warming. So it's really not an observation about how science works, but just another example of how bureaucracies protect themselves. You can believe in six impossible things before breakfast if you have tenure and there is no incontrovertible way to prove you wrong.

'Eventually, there will be a new paradigm in the social sciences that incorporates The Bell Curve'

No there won't. To the extent this happens, it will be an older paradigm reappearing.

Nostalgia might be a powerful attractor, but it is not a basis for science inquiry.

Scientists are beyond the bell curve. They are operating in a post human genome, cheap sequencing world.

No one would ever been satisfied with crude réductions had sequencing been available. Now that sequencing is available no one will go back.

But I guess, per Kuhn, we have to wait for old racists to die off.

I'm surprised that I haven't even heard of more than half the names/titles on there. A few, I've studied at the level of picking apart every last work, turned inside out and upside down in every way I could imagine.

The main thing I get from Foucault is this: "Understand the system, how it came to be and how it perpetuates itself, well enough that you can be a part of it and retain true freedom at the same time."

He had so many ground breaking developments, but I think one worth highlighting is "docile bodies" - the state wanting to analyze and control every last movement to maximally use you for ... whatever it wants to use you for. His "mental illness is social control" line of thinking is quite important as well.

Did you know that someone can be diagnosed as "catatonic schizophrenic" if, after been dragged in for an evaluation and locked up against your will for further analysis, the fact of laying in bed for hours at a time and not moving around much, followed by the doc coming and trying to prod you into a specific other positions, and resisting the prodding of the person who has locked you up, can lead to a diagnosis as "catatonic schizophrenic"?

Here's another one: negative symptoms can be something like not cleaning your room or doing poorly in school, followed by giving a poker face (lack of emotional presentation), can also get you diagnosed as "schizophrenic".

Here's another one: someone is harassing you but you can't prove it (persecutory complex). Then you demonstrate confidence in your views (delusions of grandeur). That's also "schizophrenic".

If you move too much, you're 50% of the way. If you move too little, you're 50% of the way. If you change the topic and the doc doesn't understand why, you're 50% of the way. If you don't talk enough, you're 50% of the way. If you're too happy, you're 50% of the way. If you're not happy enough, you're 50% of the way. And on and on it goes. I suggest reading the diagnostic manual and seeing what a complete load of bullshit it is.

You'll be impressed by the extensive scientific referencing. It's probably the most powerful "medical" document in the history of the planet, and it doesn't cite so much as a single reference.

As a psychiatrist, I assure you that Foucault simply does not understand what he is talking about. He is laughably bad about psychiatry, but then again he was laughably bad about everything that he touched. His entire corpus can be surmised as something that no one is worse off for never having read.

Can you share some scientific references to corroborate your opinion?

Foucault never claimed to be an expert on psychiatry. However, he observed the role of the power to define "madness" in social control.

What is "madness"? Anything that's just not comfortable enough for you?

I understand the excitement...I was once a 21 year old who enjoyed late night bull sessions as well. Have you read a critique of Foucault? His entire schtick, "madness is a form of social control" is not a sophisticated argument.

Foucault's schtick is a second rate application of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Sorry, but the Germans were much more profound than the little Frenchie.

I'd appreciate something with a little more meat than "something out there disagrees with you. Go find it."

Your avoiding the question. Isn't there a diagnosis for that? Help me out here ... which mental illness do you have?

I have a belief that is not culturally sanctioned. Which mental illness do I have?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster disapproves of your quackery. No beer volcanoes for you.

Anon7 - Little Frenchie was talking about completely different stuff. Not amenable to comparison.

"Completely different"? Foucault explicitly admitted the influence of Nietzsche ("I am simply a Nietzschean") and used Nietzschean terms like "genealogy" to describe what he was doing.

Sure, but Nietzsche would focus on the ability to break from convention, whereas Foucault would discuss the means by which such conventions were upheld.

Also, Nietzsche was very focused on the individual, especially the "great man" sort of thing who broke from convention and whose freedom enabled some artistic or creative innovation, whereas Foucault was much more interested in the systems of power which constrain the ability to do so.

Substantively different, even if some building blocks share similarities.

Also, the role of language itself, epistomology, means of classification, etc., are deeply explored in Foucault, whereas Nietzsche might be summed up by a general rejection of the notion that they should be constraining. Foucault investigates the ways in which they are constraining, and in so doing creates significant space for navigating existing systems and conventions while engaging in self-critical and system-critical presentation, which I think is much more empowering, for practical purposes of being able to do stuff without becoming viewed as the madman on the sidelines, than the Nietzschean notion that "well, you could, in principle, break free of all that."

Nietzsche would regard it as mere detail and empowering mainly for what he would dismiss as last men, who are the main subjects of concern for the predominantly leftist cadre of contemporary pomos.

"I’m surprised that I haven’t even heard of more than half the names/titles on there."

I'm not surprised.

For someone coming from "hard" sciences wanting to learn something about social sciences, which ones of these are the most approachable? I find that, in general, social scientists tend to make simple ideas seem impossibly complex while "hard" scientists - at least the good ones - try to do the opposite.

Virtually none of them are worth reading. Avoid anything written by a French man like the plague. Foucault is not worth picking up much less reading. I might, if I were in an especially generous mood, make a minor exception for Bourdieu. But probably not.

There are only three on that list, apart from the economists, worth reading. Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions is at least interesting. Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is a classic but it really only has one good idea and can probably be summarized in less than a paragraph. Rawls is also worth reading.

If you are dying to know something about where anthropology has gone wrong, Geertz might be worth your time. But I would recommend everything by Ernest Gellner first. Actually I would recommend a lot of things by a lot of other people first.

This list is one more reason to follow the Japanese and close every Social Science department in the country.

I tried to read' Das Kapital "but could not get very far. Foucault too is unreadable. As unreadable as he is , Derrida managed to be even more so, about 70 works of nonsense.

"Avoid anything written by a French man like the plague"

http://www.famous-mathematicians.com/10-famous-french-mathematicians-and-their-contributions/

Moron.

SMFS is talking about French social scientists/philosophers not French mathematicians

Strangely enough, some people consider Descartes to be primarily a philospher.

The list of French mathematicians should add Benoit Mandelbrot.

Bourdieu? You must be joking. In his most famous book, Distinction, he "proves" that your aesthetic taste is constructed for you, by your social position. This is not to deny local, cultural, social influences, but it is profoundly reductionist.

I'd skip this list and read something by Durkheim or Weber, 'founders' of sociology. Or, you might want to read a critique of sociology as a field. Is sociology a 'field of study'? Is it simply the secular equivalent of theology?

Seems close to the mark.

People are talking out of their ass and haven't read Diffusion of Innovations. It's really good--not something that will inspire you to become a sociologist per se--but it's a powerful theory that changes how you see the world.

Certainly Kuhn who moved to History of Science after a Ph.D in physics.

We read the Structure of Scientific Revolutions as an undergrad and I really remember it as kind of a puff piece.

I disagree. I first read SSR in an epistemology course in college, specifically on the philosophy of science, 45 years ago. I read it again a couple of years ago, and found it valuable once more. I think epistemology is woefully under-appreciated now; people plow ahead without thinking about the soundness of their methodology. I find climate science and Darwinian evolutionary theory particularly deficient in this regard. I just listened to Russ Roberts podcast with Pedro Domingo and I was disappointed in Domingo's conventional belief in big data and machine language.

Gotta go eat.

'I first read SSR in an epistemology course in college'

Yep - but try to convince that the work concerns that area.

Same as Quine - http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/10/quine_vs_kripke.html

I wonder how many people have read many of these books all the way through?

I read about 20% of Kuhn, 80% of Porter, and 10% of Rawls and found them all admirable. But I was rapidly hit diminishing returns about their Big Idea.

I started reading Maslow but then I realized my colleagues would not respect me any more if I did finish it, so I gave up and bought the new Call of Duty instead.

I wonder if anyone has ever honestly read Marx all the way through

No worries. Maslow's theory is one of the most throw-away theory in psychology that consistently gets disproved, and yet miraculously continues to be central for layman understanding of psychology. In other words, the theory really does not work in practice.

As for Marx, I did read Das Kapital. I was about 16 at the time, and even then, I could recognize that the guy was flat our wrong in almost every chapter's conclusion and premise. Das Kapital is worth reading just for the s**ts and giggles of what a really poor theory development looks like.

The first guy ever to produce a serious work on the macroeconomy was wrong about stuff. But it was something to build on. Most especially, the precursors of understanding the business cycle. And note, he did it without a team of graduate students to do realms of monkey work or access to any datasets whatsoever.

Plato was also wrong about nearly everything. But it was also something to build on.

The point of reading classics is not because they teach you what is right, but because you can understand how we got where we are. In following the train of thought through history, with new knowledge and perspective sometimes you'll hit upon something golden. If you just read whatever's produced in the last 20 years, in some fields you'll misunderstand basically everything they say, because a lot of it is said with an implicit assumption that you've had exposure to most of the same classics.

It's hard to write a whole book on just one idea. An idea which can be summarized in 5 sentences, too.

The numbers for some of the books are way off:

1) Michael Porter should be #1, at 107,200 citations, according to Google Scholar.

2) Karl Marx should not be on the list. Das Kapital in its German version has 5,730 citations, and in its English editions has 2,975 citations (total of ~8,700, so it would not make the cut-off at all)

3) The rest seem about right (+/- a few thousand in each case)

4) Keep in mind that Williamson's 1985 book is a continuation of his 1975 book, which has 34,000 citations (so the combined volumes are ~71,000, which would put him in the #4 spot)

So....take with a giant spoonful of salt.

You're missing several translations of Das Kapital. For example, "Le capital" has 50,000 citations.

Hi AIG - thanks for your comments. In response:

1) The 107,200 citations are from Porter's Google Scholar page, where he has lumped together two books (Competitive Strategy and Competitive Advantage of Nations), plus various translations. It could be argued that these books are two volumes of a single book, but that's not the way they have been published and thus I consider them separately. Note that the number I give in my list corresponds to the citations for the English-language version of Competitive Strategy.

2) Whoever put together Karl Marx's Google Scholar page listed Le Capital rather than Das Kapital as the highest-cited version of that book (34,000+ citations). Checking the citations shows that Le Capital is not just cited by French-language sources, so I counted that as the English-language version and then added the German-language edition to get to 40,000+ citations

3) Note that Google Scholar updates citations on a daily basis, so from sending the post to the blog until today the numbers have gone up in all cases...

4) Again, as with Michael Porter's works I only consider multi-volume works as one unit if they are explicitly published as such (i.e., Das Kapital and The History of Sexuality).

History of Sexuality (3 Volumes)

Which category did that fit in.

Sociology, Psychology, or Economics (as in when was the last time you had).

Which category? Literature (fit for deconstruction).

Also, this list is generally...meaningless...precisely due to some of the limitations highlighted above.

1) Books are no longer the primary means of presenting information in academia. Journal articles are. That's why...books...from the first half of the 20th century and before are over-represented. People simply don't write books as much anymore, because the ideas developed are "cut" into smaller pieces and presented in multiple papers instead.

2) So focusing on books automatically biases the list to include older stuff, and ignore newer stuff. An author today, for example, may write a series of articles developing a central idea and testing it. Each one would get separately cited, and the collective body may well be much higher than the books of older generations.

Example: Prospect Theory of Kahneman and Tversky. One of the most highly cited theory in social science: but its presented in 2-3 central theoretical articles, and a few thousand empirical articles, each of which has its own citation count. The overall citation count of the theory, however, would far outpace most of the books on the list. If we added up all the articles by Kahneman developing Prospect Theory, just the theoretical ones...we'd have well over 130,000 citations.

If they had done this in the 1930s, they'd have written a book. Doing it in the 80s-90s, it's a series of articles.

3) Works that cite...books...are also more likely to be in particular disciplines like sociology, where book format is still somewhat popular, and the general level of intelligence of those citing is low enough that empirical work is almost non-existent (and hence there's not much journal papers they can cite).

You're not going to see much...book...citations from economics or business or psychology...because almost everything is empirical in nature, the central tenets of the books are also written in journal format (Williamson has written several journal articles re-iterating his book's contribution, so there's no need to cite his book instead of his journal articles).

Journal articles go through...peer review...and hence are considered more reliable citations than the book versions of the same theories. So books automatically are biased against econ, business and psych, because "some guy said it in a book" is not considered sufficient evidence as "someone published it in JPE"

4) Hence, this list doesn't describe the most "influential knowledge in social science"...rather reflects the divergent of disciplines from book-based publishing to peer-review journal publishing.

Fluffy BS disciplines like sociology which are still stuck with book-based publishing...get over-represented. Rigorous disciplines...get discounted.

I'm not sure where you get this caricature of sociology as consisting entirely of pie-in-the-sky critical anti-empirics, but if you pick up any random issue of AJS or ARS there will be a sizable number of empirical papers. I am not a sociologist, but I'm certainly... sociology-adjacent, and almost every sociology paper I've ever cited was an empirical paper. Keep in mind that sociology is the discipline most closely associated with demography, which is by its nature mostly empirical.

Dear hive mind,
Will you please take the central question addressed by each book on this list, and offer your opinion of the best book to read on that question? In other words, if a more recent book has come out that better address the same question as a book on this list, what is it?
Gracias.

I observe that there are absolutely no women on this list. Nor, apparently, on this conversation thread. Please explain.

Aren't you a woman?

It is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. When not keeping Hilary out of the White house, and fixing the Oscars, the secret patriarchal cabal makes sure no one publishes any books by any women of any importance.

As well as controlling the British crown and keeping the metric system down of course.

(The former explanation is Virginia Woolf's explanation that the cradle was the enemy of Art. Except now Western women don't have children and yet still don't publish much of any interest. So I would suggest that publishing is the geek's way of attracting female attention - how many hot babes would Salman Rushdie be seeing if he wasn't a famous author? But that only works for men. Being rich and famous does not greatly improve a woman's chance of finding a good man)

Even if women are now respected to the tune of 90% of what their abilities deserve rather than 20% of what respect their abilities warrant for them, It's still going to take an Aristotle or Adam Smith to crack into the list for the most citations. In part, because citations have a sort of additive effect, where once some people are citing someone then more people notice this and start to cite the same people. Even a small difference can have a highly compounding effect.

Also, since women's rights and feminism are pretty new, just the last couple/few generations, probably a lot of important works by women are still within sub-fields which are deemed as marginal or uninteresting by many, for works of broader interest which will be relevant for citing in a broader diversity of applications.

How about the top 200? I bet you'll get a lot more.

Nothing by Julian SImon, Friedman, or Hazlitt?

Comments for this post are closed