| Highly cited papers in classical studies since 2000 |
| Rank | Paper | Citations |
| 1 | Toward a sociology of reading in classical antiquity W.A. Johnson, University of Cincinnati, American Journal of Philology, 121(4):593-6, 2000 | 16 |
| 2 | Civic ideology and the problem of difference: The politics of Aeschylean tragedy, once again,. Goldhill, King’s College, Cambridge, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 120:34-56, 2000 | 14 |
| 3 | The Greek nouns in –¯os and –eus, P. Brosman, Folia Linguistica Historica, 25(1-2):1-19, 2004 | 13 |
| 4 | A market economy in the early Roman Empire, P. Temin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Journal of Roman Studies, 91:169-181, 2001 | 12 |
| 5 | Critical studies in the cantica of Sophocles: Antigone, C.W. Willink, Classical Quarterly, 51(1):65-89, 2001 | 11 |
| 6 | Nothing to do with democracy: Athenian drama and the polis, P.J. Rhodes, Durham University, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 123:104-119, 2003 | 10 |
| 7 | A total write-off: Aristophanes, Cratinus and the rhetoric of comic competition, I. Ruffell, Christ Church, OxfordClassical Quarterly, 52(1):138-163, 2002 | 10 |
| 8 | Material consequences of contemporary classical collecting, C. Chippindale, University of Cambridge, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; and D.%u2009W.%u2009J. Gill, University of Wales, Department of Classics and Ancient History, American Journal of Archaeology, 104(3):463-511, July 2000 | 9 |
| 9 | De Beneficiis and Roman society, M. Griffin, Somerville College, Oxford Journal of Roman Studies, 93:92-113, 2003 | 9 |
| 10 | Slaves of Dionysos: Satyrs, audience and the ends of the Oresteia, M. Griffith, University of California, Berkeley Classical Antiquity, 21(2):195ff, October 2002 | 9 |
In bibliometric evaluations of research in the sciences and social sciences, “highly cited” is a relative term because citation rates vary widely by field — as much as tenfold. In the humanities, average citation rates are typically low, for several reasons. First, books or monographs are often the main vehicle of communication in the humanities, rather than journal articles. In fact, seven out of ten references in journal articles in the humanities are citations of books, not articles. Thus, an analysis of citations from the journal literature alone offers but a partial view of research impact in the humanities. Second, the dynamics of citations in the humanities are different from those in the sciences and social sciences. Studies in the humanities tend to be more specialised, or “fractionated”, resulting in fewer researchers focusing on more subjects. The pace of citation is slower, too, resulting from relatively long gestation periods between research and journal publication. Finally, researchers in the humanities in their publications are frequently carrying on a dialogue with “classic” works and their authors, as much as or more often than conducting scholarly exchanges with contemporary colleagues. All these factors, while generalisations, tend to maintain low citation counts in the humanities, based on the journal literature. In sum, citation analysis in the humanities is a very different undertaking than in the sciences and social sciences, one to be pursued with caution. The lack of sizeable citations, therefore, is not necessarily evidence of an absence of influence. On the other hand, those papers that have collected the most citations in a field over a relatively recent period are deserving of note as research works that demonstrably have had influence. The above list collects journal articles in the field of classical studies, all published since 2000, that have collected nine or more citations to date. Naturally, older papers have had more time to collect citations than more recent works. Of those carrying author addresses, the majority are by UK researchers.