Theory, explanation and references in geography: Comparing two seminal books by David Harvey and Henry Yeung 269DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Introduction In 2023, few new books attracted such in- terest in international geography as Henry Wai-chung Yeung’s Theory and Explanation in Geography, published with Wiley in the book series of the Royal Geographical Soci- ety with the Institute of British Geographers (Yeung, H.W. 2024). Although the book was released with a 2024 copyright, academic events to discuss the volume began well be- fore the end of 2023, with the Author Meets Critics session at the Annual International Conference of the RGS-IBG in the Ondaatje Theatre of the Society’s London headquar- ters on 1 September 2023 certainly being among the most important of them (https:// vimeo.com/860120139/b7a924c36b). In the succeeding one and a half years, a series of book launch events took place around the world, including a tour at seven Geography departments in UK universities in February 2024 (https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry- yeung-20176266/recent-activity/all/), a book trip around the north-eastern quarter of the USA and the UK in September and October 2024 (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/up- date/urn:li:activity:7239559854292377601/), 1 Department of Social and Economic Geography, Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University. Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, 1117 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: ferenc.gyuris@ttk.elte.hu Theory, explanation and references in geography: Comparing two seminal books by David Harvey and Henry Yeung Ferenc GYURIS1 Abstract This article aims to present how the comparative bibliometric analysis of seminal books’ reference lists reflects, and enables scrutinising, some fundamental structural characteristics of the functioning of Geography as a scientific discipline in different periods. It employs David Harvey’s Explanation in Geography, a magnum opus of Geography’s quantitative revolution from 1969, and Henry W. Yeung’s Theory and Explanation in Geography from 2024, a comprehensive conceptual work whose title consciously evokes Harvey’s volume, as case studies. After discussing the possibilities and limits of investigating books as imprints of changing academic practices and addressing methodological questions, the paper reveals a significant increase in the number of references and referenced publications between the two books. It reaffirms the rising share of journal articles (instead of books) and multi-author publications (instead of single-author ones) as structural outcomes of ‘academic neoliberalisation’, while revealing that books, book chapters and single-author publications still make a dif- ference and have a considerable impact on academic discourses. It presents that ‘Geography’ as a term has become rather a synonym of ‘Human Geography’ in certain contexts, instead of containing both Human and Physical Geography. The results prove a significant growth in the impact of publications by female authors and the visibility of scholars outside the UK and the USA, including the Global South. At the same time, they still indicate a firm male dominance and the hegemony of Anglo-American authors and English language publications in the discipline. Keywords: decolonial, geographies of science, geopolitics of knowledge, Global North/Global South, scien- tometrics, David Harvey, worlding, Henry W. Yeung Received July 2025, accepted August 2025 https://vimeo.com/860120139/b7a924c36b https://vimeo.com/860120139/b7a924c36b https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-yeung-20176266/recent-activity/all/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-yeung-20176266/recent-activity/all/ Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.270 and a series of visits at universities through- out continental Europe in November and December 2024 (https://www.linkedin. com/posts/henry-yeung-20176266_the-first- of-my-book-talk-in-the-last-book-activity- 7262821435436392448-BSo8). While the book aimed to be “useful in making a clear(er) case for explanatory mid- range theory in Geography” (Yeung, H.W. 2024, p. xiii), it was doing so by referring in the very first sentence in Chapter One to David Harvey’s (1969) magnum opus with a similar, though not identical, title, Explanation in Geography, one of the best- known and most-cited pieces of Geography’s ‘quantitative revolution’ in the 1950s and 1960s (cf. Johnston, R. 2008; Gyuris, F. et al. 2022). The similarity in the titles of the two books is unmistakable, just as their special relationship, with Harvey’s work serving as a milestone and reference point in the his- tory of Geography, relative to which Yeung introduced and presented his significantly newer and fundamentally different own ar- gumentation (cf. Yeung, H.W. et al. 2025). Yeung’s overview of theory and explanation in contemporary geographical thought also starts where Harvey’s 1969 volume ended, “tak[ing] a quick tour of the key conceptual priorities and their styles of theory and/or explanation in the various critical approaches since David Harvey’s (1969) rendition of the positivist approach for Geography” (Yeung, H.W. 2024, p. 36). Both books are large-scale scientific under- takings that seek to find an adequate theoreti- cal underpinning of Geography. In addition to that, their authors intended them to be gap- filling works, a significant educational func- tion of which was to facilitate the work of pro- fessional readers who are (yet) less familiar with the complex and diverse topics presented in the book but who wish to review and un- derstand these topics in a structured way. (Cf. Harvey, D.’s [1969] words about “I sought to publish it [the book] because I feel sure there are many geographers, both young and old, who are in a similar state of ignorance to that which I was in before I commenced to write” [p. v] and Yeung, H.W. [2024] stressing that “there is no recent authored academic book in Geography that goes into this kind of epis- temological debates on theory and method” [p. xii] and “[j]ust like one very kind review- er of my full manuscript has alluded, I too wished I had seen and perhaps read such a book during my Manchester PhD in the early 1990s” [p. xiii].) As a result of all of this, the two books provide a detailed overview of the newest (relative to their time) conceptual and theoretical discussions in Geography, along with the most influential authors and publica- tions in these discussions. By doing so, they record the structure of contemporary theory debates in Geography and influence their read- ers’ imaginations of who counts as the most important authors and what the most relevant theoretical works are in and for the discipline. Therefore, this study aims to analyse the refer- ence lists of the two books and compare them to reveal some major structural characteristics of academic publishing in Geography, as well as the evolution of these characteristics be- tween the 1960s and the 2020s. Particularly, it will focus on (1) the number of references, (2) the share of single- and co-authored refer- ences, (3) the most referenced scholars, (4) the gender ratio and (5) the geographical back- ground of referenced scholars. The relevance of analysing books from a geographies of science perspective Over the last quarter-century, several schol- ars have investigated how the neoliberal shift in global economics and politics since the 1980s has led to a significant transforma- tion in the functioning of academia, includ- ing the practices of scientific writing and publishing (Paasi, A. 2005, 2015, 2025; Han- nah, M.G. 2018). Although, as Hannah, M.G. (2018, p. 18) pointed out, the consequences or “perils” of what he called “academic neo- liberalization” have played out in variegated ways in different countries, they have some remarkable structural features that foster similar mechanisms of transformation in https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henry-yeung-20176266_the-first-of-my-book-talk-in-the-last-book-activity-7262821435436392448-BSo8 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henry-yeung-20176266_the-first-of-my-book-talk-in-the-last-book-activity-7262821435436392448-BSo8 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henry-yeung-20176266_the-first-of-my-book-talk-in-the-last-book-activity-7262821435436392448-BSo8 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/henry-yeung-20176266_the-first-of-my-book-talk-in-the-last-book-activity-7262821435436392448-BSo8 271DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. academic strategies and practices virtually everywhere. In many cases, public funding provided to universities and research institu- tions either decreases or becomes conditional on what is called the academic productivity of these institutions, increasingly measured by the number of publications the scholars affiliated with the institution publish. That happens directly as well as indirectly, for instance, in the form of fetishising the rank a specific institution receives in some of the globally most powerful rankings produced by international analytics firms (such as QS World University Rankings by Quacquarelli Symonds and THE World University Rank- ings by the U.S. News & World Report in the United States, or ARWU Academic Ranking of World Universities by the Shanghai Rank- ing Consultancy in China). In these rankings, the number of publications and their cita- tions play a decisive role (cf. Paasi, A. 2025). As another pervasive phenomenon, funding from research grants accounts for an increas- ing share of the revenues of scientific institu- tions (Hannah, M.G. 2018; Cupples, J. 2020). Consequently, these institutions find them- selves in perpetual competition for these re- sources, where the number of publications and the citations they receive significantly impacts the likelihood of a grant application becoming successful (Paasi, A. 2025). Neoliberal practices of audit and assess- ment are strongly quantitative. They pay distinguished attention to features that can be expressed in numbers, which allow techni- cally precise calculations and measurements, including creating sophisticated rankings of which scholars or institutions are ‘better’ and ‘how much’. (Even if these precise calcula- tion techniques are not necessarily accurate in grasping the actual quality, novelty or gen- eral social utility of the scientific knowledge that is being produced). As researchers and their institutions are increasingly pressured to publish more, they become more inter- ested in ‘fast publishing’ (Sheppard, E. 2012), including prioritising writing journal articles (Johnston, R. 2005; Cupples, J. 2020), which are much shorter and can be produced in significantly higher quantities within a given timeframe, rather than books. Hence, under these circumstances of ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. 1997), “[i]nstead of monographs, institutional recognition is increasingly attributed to journal articles” (Paasi, A. 2025. p. 57), which, in some instanc- es, may happen in quite harsh forms, such as “chairs suggesting [their staff to] desist from publishing books” (Sheppard, E. 2012, p. 1). These structural features also push re- searchers towards ‘getting more for less’ by producing ‘least publishable units’ (Broad, W.J. 1981), i.e. manuscripts with the mini- mum amount of research required for being regarded as publishable at a basic level, in- stead of writing comprehensive papers, and submitting papers to journals that just reach the minimum standard of avoiding desk re- jection and only if they are allowed to un- dergo major revision, the authors will devote a significant portion of the work that should have been done before the first submission. Moreover, publishing ten articles instead of a monograph may result in ten times more references to certain publications and their authors, and ten articles may attract ten times more citations than a single monograph. That also makes scholars collectively interested in producing more articles and fewer books, as they are expected to attract an increasing number of citations. The same underlying reasons also contribute to ‘the collaborative turn’ (Olechnicka, A. et al. 2019) and the skyrocketing share of co- and multi-authored publications, rather than single-authored ones, where the publication and its citations are fully included in the statistics of each co-author, thereby boosting their numbers (Gyuris, F. 2018). Since monographic books are usually the enterprise of a single au- thor or two authors who have been work- ing closely together on the same topic for a long time, the ‘collaborative turn’ also works against writing monographs. Despite these structural forces, books, particularly monographs, continue to play a crucial role in many disciplines, includ- ing Geography. Although several academic Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.272 journals tended towards downsizing or even suspending their book review sections, the American Association of Geographers (AAG) launched The AAG Review of Books as a sepa- rate journal dedicated solely to book reviews in 2013. Whereas the Annals of the AAG pub- lished only 19 book reviews in its five issues during 2012, the last year before The AAG Review of Books launched, the latter released 3.3 times more book reviews (63) in 2013, which was not just a one-time outlier, as the journal also released 51 book reviews in 2024. As another sign of the importance of books, checking the individual profiles of Google Scholar for scientists having Geography among their disciplinary labels (who can be identified by searching for ‘label: geography’ in the database) will lead one to find David Harvey standing on the top of the list with 384,697 citations (as of 17 June 2025). Although Google Scholar, like many other academic databases, have their significant limitations and biases (many of which are presented by Olechnicka, A. et al. 2019), out of Harvey’s 15 most-cited publications, which received 237,440 citations in sum (or 61.7% of Harvey’s total), there is only one journal article (Harvey, D. 1989) with 10,102 citations and 14 books and book chapters (including reprints and editions in foreign languages) with 227,338 citations. As Gyuris, F. et al. (2025) reveal for another research tradition, that of global production networks, the six most-cited pub- lications in the field include a seminal book, Global Production Networks: Theorizing Economic Development in an Interconnected World from Coe, N.M. and Yeung, H.W. (2015), and if one counts only the citations from 2020 to 2024, the same monograph will lead the list. There is also considerable evidence from various social sciences that monographs writ- ten in the form of comprehensive and easily understandable essays are especially likely to become fundamental textbooks, whose significance is not only reflected in the num- ber of scientific citations they attract but also in the massive catalysing role they play in paradigm shifts. (See, for example, Barnes, T.J. and Bergmann, L.R. [2022] on Bunge, W.’s [1962, 1966] Theoretical Geography or Hubbard, P. et al.’s [2008] Key Texts in Human Geography, all 26 chapters of which are about books instead of articles.) In many cases, such books also have the potential to attract the interest of millions of readers outside the narrow confines of science, make them aware of certain phenomena and the connections between them, and achieve a remarkable social impact – including making the entire discipline much more visible, relevant and important to the eyes of the broader public (cf. Gyuris, F. 2014 on Wilkinson, R.G. and Pickett, K.’s [2009] The Spirit Level, Sheppard, E. [2015] on Piketty, T.’s [2014] Capital in the Twenty-First Century, or Kornai, J. [2006] on the reception and afterlife of his influ- ential book The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism [Kornai, J. 1992]). In addition to their significant contribu- tion to the scientific enterprise, books can also serve as essential research objects from a geography of science perspective. Especially monographs, which aim to synthesise a large body of literature and give a comprehen- sive overview of the state of the academic discourse and the most relevant ideas and publications, are significant milestones in the historical process of scientific knowledge production. They are not just one of the many publications of a particular scholar but also bear the imprint of the structural features of knowledge production of their time (and place). Comparing seminal books from differ- ent ages with each other may reveal not just the personal writing, editing, or referencing styles and habits of their authors. It also pro- vides insight into the general writing, editing and referencing conventions and norms of the broader academic context in which these books were written – as well as ruptures and continuities in these conventions and norms. Methodology and results In this study, the reference analysis was based on the reference lists in Harvey’s and Yeung’s books. As Harvey, D.’s (1969) 273DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. seminal work was published well before the emergence of online citation databases, I scrutinised the items in its reference list manually, one by one. Yeung, H.W.’s (2024) volume is indexed in the Scopus database, which includes the entire list of references and allows a relatively fast and comprehen- sive analysis of the references. However, the database also contains some data errors and inconsistencies, necessitating manual review before the study. The resulting dataset in- cluded the title, authorship, year of publica- tion, and the publishing platform (e.g. book or journal) for each referenced item. The author data required for the analysis could be collected using several sources. In most cases, the Scopus database contains the full names of the cited authors, and the gen- der of the cited authors can usually be iden- tified based on the first name. However, in some cases, only the first name’s initial letter was included in the database, and the refer- ence list in Harvey’s volume only included the initial letter of the first name of all cited authors. Of course, the full name and gen- der of specific famous authors are also well- known and do not require special research. In other cases, for contemporary authors, the official open-access university/research institute profile of the cited author provided information about the author’s gender. In the case of authors who are no longer alive, the necessary information could best be found in the former publications of these authors available in the open domain, in obituaries or memoirs written about them, and, occasion- ally, in library databases (e.g. the US Library of Congress catalogue). Information on the geographical back- ground of the authors cited by Yeung was primarily based on the Scopus database, which, in most cases, allowed the determi- nation of the then-current institutional affili- ation of the referenced author as recorded in the referenced publication. In other cases, official information in the open domain (pri- marily the personal profile on the institu- tional website) provided adequate informa- tion about the referenced authors. The geo- graphical background of the authors cited by Harvey in 1969 could mostly be identified by scrutinising books and articles on the history of science, as well as obituaries and memoirs written about the particular authors. Number of referenced publications and authors David Harvey’s 542-page book includes 514 references from 423 authors (including co- authors). Although Henry Yeung’s volume is significantly shorter and adds up to 336 pages, it contains 839 references from 679 authors (Figure 1). In other words, while the average number of referenced publications per page is 0.95 for Harvey’s monograph, it is 2.50 for Yeung. Likewise, the number of referenced au- thors relative to the number of pages increases from 0.78 for Harvey to 2.02 for Yeung. In both cases, this is more than a two-and-a-half times increase between the two books. The two volumes also show remarkable dif- ferences in the structure of referenced publica- tions by document types. For Harvey, D. (1969), 47.2 percent of the referenced publications are books (monographs and edited books), and 11.5 percent are book chapters, which add up to a total of 58.7 percent. The share of journal arti- cles is significantly lower, 35.1 percent, and oth- er document types (professional reports, dis- cussion papers, dissertations and unpublished manuscripts) contribute 6.2 percent. In Yeung, Fig. 1. The number of pages, referenced publications and referenced authors in Harvey, D. (1969) and Yeung, H.W. (2024). Source: Author’s analysis. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.274 H.W.’s book (2024), however, 64.1 percent of the referenced publications are journal articles, and only 25.2 percent of them are books (17.1%) and book chapters (8.1%), with other document types representing 10.7 percent. The two books can also be compared regard- ing how far back their references go in time. In this respect, it is not fundamentally impor- tant how old the earliest publication they cite is (Tissot, M.A. 1881 in Harvey’s case and Locke, J. 1975[1690] in Yeung’s book), but how old or new the bulk of the cited works are. To determine this and make the references of the two books comparable, I compared the pub- lication date of the cited publications to the publication date of the corresponding book (t), where the value of t is 1969 in the case of Harvey’s book and 2024 in the case of Yeung’s book. During the analysis, I examined each year the share of the publications published up to that year (i.e. in that year or earlier) rela- tive to the cumulative total of all references in the given book. For example, in the case of Harvey’s book, t–50 includes all cited publi- cations published up to 1919 (i.e. in 1919 and before), and in the case of Yeung’s book, it consists of all cited publications published up to 1974 (i.e. in 1974 and before). As the results indicate (Figure 2), in the case of Harvey’s book, half of the cited publications were no more than seven years old when the book was published, while in Yeung’s title, publications of the same age provided only 28.0 percent of all citations. In Harvey’s vol- ume, only one-third (33.3%) of the cited works were more than ten years old, and only 8.6 per- cent were more than twenty years old, while in Yeung’s book, the exact proportions were 60.8 percent and 31.5 percent. For Harvey, publications older than thirty years accounted for only 4.9 percent of the references, while for Yeung, they accounted for 12.2 percent. In Harvey’s book, the proportion of references older than eleven years was roughly the same (31.3%) as the share of references older than twenty years (31.5%) was in Yeung’s book. Furthermore, the proportion of references older than 18 years in Harvey’s volume was roughly the same (12.3%) as those older than 30 years in Yeung’s book (12.2%). It can therefore be seen that the time horizon of the references in Yeung’s book goes back significantly (about 10–12 years) further compared to the publica- tion date of the volume than in Harvey’s. I also took a closer look at the number of referenced authors. In David Harvey’s 1969 magnum opus, each referenced publication has an average of 1.16 authors. In Henry Yeung’s 2024 volume, the corresponding value is 1.47 (Figure 3). That indicates an increase in the share of multi-authored publications, which is a general trend in contemporary academ- ia. However, the value of 1.47 still reflects a significant share of single-authored works among the referenced publications. Fig. 2. The cumulative share of referenced publications released before a specific year in Harvey, D. (1969) and Yeung, H.W. (2024). Source: Author’s analysis. Fig. 3. The average number of authors of referenced publications in Harvey, D. (1969) and Yeung, H.W. (2024). Source: Author’s analysis. 275DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Most-referenced authors In both books, the referenced authors sig- nificantly differ in the number of times their works were cited. Among the 423 authors cited by David Harvey, 386 scholars (91.3%) were cited with only one or two publications, and only 37 authors (8.7%) had at least three publications cited. However, the publications of these 37 authors received 33.5% of all refer- ences. For Henry Yeung’s book, 679 authors were cited in total, 564 of them (83.1%) with just one or two publications and 115 authors (16.9%) with at least three publications, and the 115 authors received two-thirds (66.9%) of all citations (Figure 4). That means a rela- tively few, especially influential scholars lead the list of referenced authors for both books, and their dominance is significantly stronger for Yeung’s book than for Harvey’s. Even among the most-cited authors, some stand out with remarkably high numbers. Harvey referred to 17 publications of the UK-born human geographer Brian Berry, who made his academic career in the United States and became one of the most influential representatives of Geography’s ‘quantitative revolution’ (cf. Barnes, T.J. 2001; Johnston, R. and Sidaway, J.D. 2016; Gyuris, F. et al. 2022). Berry was closely followed in second place by the US quantitative geographer Michael Dacey, with 15 publications cited. The UK- based Richard Chorley, another leading fig- ure of Geography’s quantitative turn in the 1960s, is already significantly behind Berry and Dacey with 8 publications cited. Most of the list is made up by leading representatives of Geography’s ‘quantitative revolution’, in- cluding a young Harvey himself (Table 1). In Yeung’s book, 30 references go to publica- tions in which Yeung himself was involved as either a single or co-author. This is not surpris- ing in a volume whose author aims to give a comprehensive overview of the current state of research in a field he has intensively con- tributed to for several decades as one of the most prominent international scholars. The other most-cited authors are the University of British Columbia-based geographer Jamie Peck (21), the British sociologist Andrew Sayer (16), the UK-born geographers David Harvey and Nigel Thrift (12–12), the Irish-American political scientist and historian Benedict Anderson and the British geographers Doreen Massey and Peter Dicken (11–11) (Table 2). As a significant difference, Harvey, D. (1969)’s top references include many human as well as physical geographers and several philosophers. In Yeung, H.W.’s (2024) vol- ume, the most-referenced geographers are all human geographers and some social sci- entists are also at the top of the list. Gender ratio: Decreasing but still significant male dominance I investigated the gender ratio for the most- cited authors, with three or more references each, which included 37 authors in Harvey’s book and 115 in Yeung’s volume. For David Harvey’s monograph from 1969, all of these authors were male. In Henry Yeung’s book, published 55 years later, the share of female scholars among the most-cited authors in- creased to 24.3 percent, and 20.8 percent of all references went to publications from fe- male authors and co-authors. These numbers reflect a significant change over the decades (Figure 5). Nonetheless, the gender ratio still Fig. 4. The share of referenced authors with at least three referenced publications and the share of ref- erences of these authors in Harvey, D. (1969) and Yeung, H.W. (2024). Source: Author’s analysis. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.276 Table 1. The most cited scholars in Harvey, D. (1969) Rankings Name (Discipline) Country (place of birth) Number of first- authored publications 1 2 3 4 5–7 5–7 5–7 8–11 8–11 8–11 8–11 12–20 12–20 12–20 12–20 12–20 12–20 12–20 12–20 12–20 Berry, Brian J. L. (Geography) Dacey, Michael F. (Geography) Chorley, Richard J. (Geography) Curry, Leslie (Geography) Garrison, William L. (Geography) Haggett, Peter (Geography) Harvey, David (Geography) Carnap, Rudolf (Philosophy) Kendall, Maurice G. (Statistics) Marble, Duane (Geography) Tobler, Waldo (Geography) Getis, Artur (Geography) Hägerstrand, Torsten (Geography) Hartshorne, Richard (Geography) Hempel, Carl G. (Philosophy, logic) Nagel, Ernest (Philosophy) Olsson, Gunnar (Geography) Popper, Karl (Philosophy) Robinson, Arthur H. (Geography) Stoddart, David R. (Geography) UK USA UK UK USA UK UK Germany UK USA USA USA Sweden USA Germany Austria-Hungary Sweden Austria-Hungary Canada UK 17 15 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Source: Author’s analysis. Table 2. The most cited scholars in Yeung, H.W. (2024) Rankings Name (Discipline) Country* Number of first-authored publications 1 2 3 4–5 4–5 6–8 6–8 6–8 9 10–13 10–13 10–13 10–13 14 15–24 15–24 15–24 15–24 15–24 15–24 15–24 15–24 15–24 15–24 Yeung, Henry W. (Geography) Peck, Jamie (Geography) Sayer, Andrew (Sociology, philosophy, urban and regional studies) Harvey, David (Geography) Thrift, Nigel (Geography) Anderson, Benedict (Political science, history) Dicken, Peter (Geography) Massey, Doreen (Geography) Latour, Bruno (Philosophy, anthropology, sociology) Allen, John (Geography) Coe, Neil M. (Geography) Sheppard, Eric (Geography) Storper, Michael (Geography) Bhaskar, Roy (Philosophy of science) Ash, James N. (Geography) Beach, Derek (Political science) Boschma, Ron (Economics) Butler, Judith E. (Education) Cox, Kevin R. (Geography) Elder-Vass, Dave (Sociology) Foucault, Michel (Philosophy, history) Harman, Graham (Philosophy) Hess, Martin (Geography) Tsang, Eric W.K. (Business studies) Singapore Canada UK USA UK USA UK UK France UK Australia USA USA/UK UK UK Denmark Netherlands Ireland USA UK France USA UK USA 30 21 16 12 12 11 11 11 10 8 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 *Institutional affiliation as recorded in Scopus for 2024 or the latest available date before 2024. Source: Author’s analysis. 277DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. moves within the range of 3:1 and 4:1, in- dicating a high degree of gender disparities in contemporary academia. Notably, among the 115 most cited authors in Yeung’s book, one researcher identifies as non-binary in the publicly available personal profile at the university website, which would have been hardly imaginable in the 1960s. Despite the small case number, this phenomenon also indicates the more general social changes between the publication of the two volumes and the transforming social context of the operation of science. Geographical background of the referenced works’ authors: European and North American dominance, with a slowly increasing presence of the Global South Determining the geographical background of the authors cited by Harvey is a highly complex task for two reasons. On the one hand, no source is available that would reli- ably contain all authors’ biographical data. Instead, the related information can only be found by searching for individual authors in many different sources, which is sometimes extremely time-consuming and may not even lead to a clear result. Moreover, sometimes there are uncertainties in the available sourc- es, so it is necessary to explore and critically compare several sources for a specific author, and only if these sources match will it be pos- sible to produce the required geographical information. On the other hand, it is often particularly difficult or practically impossi- ble to determine a given author’s affiliation when a given publication was made, which was not consistently indicated in most pub- lications for a long time. This is especially true for turbulent periods in history, when, for example, due to world wars and the ter- ror raging in totalitarian dictatorships, many researchers were forced to flee their previ- ous places of residence and work, sometimes even several times within a short period. Therefore, rather than determining the geographical background of cited authors based on institutional affiliation, a more precise possibility has opened to scrutinise the authors’ place of birth. Of the 37 authors from whom Harvey cited at least three pub- lications each, nearly two-thirds were born in a location currently belonging to either the United Kingdom (35.1%) or the United States (29.7%). Most of the rest came from continen- tal Europe (Germany: 8.1%; Sweden: 5.4%; Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Moldova and Norway: 2.7% each according to the national boundaries of 2025), one from Canada (2.7%), one from New Zealand and one from today’s Turkey. Africa, Central and South America and the rest of Asia were not represented. Considering that Harvey did not refer to the same number of works by each author and focusing instead on the 172 publications from these 37 authors, the results will reveal that 72.7% of the references went to publications with authors born in either the UK (41.3%) or the US (31.4%), which indicates an extreme Anglo-American focus (Figure 6). For Yeung, H.W.’s (2024) book, the Scopus database contains information about the in- stitutional affiliation of the authors of the referenced publications. This dataset was used to analyse the geographical back- ground of the referenced publications. As the results indicate, a strong dominance of British (37.0%) and US (23.6%) authors ap- Fig. 5. The share of female scholars among the most-referenced authors and the references of female scholars among all references in Harvey, D. (1969) and Yeung, H.W. (2024). Source: Author’s analysis. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.278 plies. Their combined share, 60.7 percent, is lower than in Harvey’s book (72.7%), but still reveals a firm geographical inequality, as the rest of the world adds up less than 40 percent. The list of countries owing a share of at least 1.5 percent only includes locations in North America (Canada: 7.0%), some other developed economies of the Commonwealth of Nations (Singapore: 5.7%; Australia: 2.8%), continental European countries belonging to the Western Bloc during the Cold War pe- riod (Germany: 2.8%; Netherlands: 2.5%; Sweden: 2.3%; Finland: 2.0%; Denmark: 1.6%; France: 1.5%) and China (1.7%) as the only representative of medium- and low-income countries. The absence of post-communist countries is also noteworthy. Still, on the other hand, unlike David Harvey’s 1969 volume, Henry Yeung’s 2024 work refers to publications by some authors from 13 coun- tries in South America (Brazil and Chile), Africa (Egypt and South Africa), South Asia (India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka), Southeast Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines) and East Asia (China, Japan, South Korea) (Figure 7). That is a significant step towards internationalising and decolonising in- ternational Geography (Ferretti, F. 2020; Schelhaas, B. et al. 2020; Radcliffe, S.A. 2022) by incorporating alternative views from outside the core of global academic knowledge production, even if the core’s hegemonic position did not diminish, just decreased to a relatively minor extent. It is remarkable, though, that the spaces of academic publishing remain much more geographically concentrated than the spac- es of writing. The top ten publishing plat- forms with the most publications cited by Yeung, H.W. (2024) are all located in the UK (8 journals) and the USA (2 journals), with the Britain-based journal Progress in Human Geography leading with a large margin (86 publications) over Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, another UK-based journal in second place (29 publications) (Table 3). Similarly, the massive and increas- ing dominance of English as the lingua franca of international academia (cf. Paasi, A. 2015; Müller, M. 2021) is clearly indicated by the fact that 76.7 percent of the referenced works in Harvey’s volume and all referenced publi- Fig. 6. Referenced publications from the most-cited scholars (with three or more cited publications per person) by the author’s place of birth according to the national boundaries of 2025 in Harvey, D. (1969). (The area of pie charts is directly proportional to the quantity represented.) Source: Author’s analysis. 279DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. cations in Yeung’s book are in English, even if a marginal share of references are English editions of academic works originally pub- lished in other languages (e.g. in the case of the English edition of Michel Foucault’s publications in French). Conclusions and discussion As I explained in the introduction to the arti- cle, I did not examine the two selected books in isolation, but rather as a reflection of the scholarly practices and structural character- istics of their time. Consequently, I do not see the differences between the two volumes as a reflection of individual differences in the positions and work of the two authors, but rather as a reflection of the changing schol- arly context in which the two authors and everyone else work. My findings, therefore, are not aimed at saying something about ei- ther David Harvey or Henry Yeung or other scholars in particular. Instead, they want to Fig. 7. Referenced publications by the author’s institutional affiliation as recorded in the Scopus database in Yeung, H.W. (2024). (The area of pie charts is directly proportional to the quantity represented.) Source: Author’s analysis. Table 3. The number of publications cited by Yeung, H.W. (2024) in journals with at least ten referenced publications Journal Country Number of publications Progress in Human Geography Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers Dialogues in Human Geography Environment and Planning D: Society and Place Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space Regional Studies Economic Geography Journal of Economic Geography Antipode Philosophy of the Social Sciences UK UK UK UK UK UK USA UK UK USA 86 29 27 21 20 18 16 14 12 11 Source: Author’s analysis of Scopus data. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.280 illuminate what, how, and why changed in global mainstream Geography between the 1960s and the 2020s. Similarly, given that Geography (along with other disciplines) has continuously operated embedded into a broader academic, social, political, economic and cultural framework, I do not interpret the similarities between the two books pri- marily as a ‘similarity’ between two particu- lar authors’ scholarly work, but as a sign that certain things have remained structurally rel- atively unchanged in academic Geography, having had similar effects and consequences over half a century ago and today. My results and the many interesting patterns emerging from them also confirm that this type of ref- erence-centric analysis of selected influential books can contribute relevant findings to in- terpreting and understanding Geography’s past, present, and possible future. (1) The first important lesson to emerge from the results is that the number of works and authors cited has increased significantly in proportion to the length of the book from Harvey, D. (1969) to Yeung, H.W. (2024). One can assume a combination of several complex factors behind that, of which contemporary geographers have a lot of personal experi- ence, and which are often discussed in spe- cialised works. (i) The first possible suggestion would be that institutionalised Geography can reflect on a much longer history today than in the 1960s, meaning that scholars can refer to much more literature. In fact, the timeframe of Yeung, H.W.’s (2024) references goes back longer relative to the publication date of the book than in Harvey, D.’s case (1969), but both books predominantly refer to publica- tions not older than 15–20 years. (ii) The results may indicate the emergence of a new way of seeing in the international geographical community that authors should place their findings much better in the scien- tific discourse than was typical in previous decades, which necessarily requires broader and more abundant references to the litera- ture. In other words, a new practice of sci- entific publishing has gained ground, which is rather ‘discourse-centric’ instead of its old ‘personal interest-centric’ counterpart. Many decades ago, authors conventionally began their study by presenting the significance they perceived of the chosen topic, justifying the topic’s relevance by their personal inter- est, and intending to answer questions arising from their interest with their results. That is what one may call a ‘personal interest-centric’ approach. In contrast, the main characteristic of today’s scientific operation is that the au- thors derive their research topic from the on- going literary discourse, branch off from that discourse, justify the relevance of the subject by referring to the discourse, and primarily intend to contribute new additions to the dis- course with their results – what one may call a ‘discourse-centric’ approach. (iii) The results also seem to reflect that authors see a relatively greater value and significance of theoretical explanations and findings today compared to empirical find- ings than half a century ago. This explana- tion aligns with Yeung, H.W.’s (2024) remark about what he calls ‘philosophy envy’ in Geography and Nigel Thrift’s (2021) com- ment about the risk of writing ‘phiction’ (also cf. Puente Lozano, P. 2025). (iv) ‘Academic neoliberalisation’ can also be traced behind the significant increase in the number of citations. Especially in a world where scientometric indicators play a prominent role in the development of a researcher’s career and opportunities for advancement (e.g. obtaining funding and getting promoted), authors become accus- tomed to publication practices where, dur- ing the writing of the publication, the need to comply with the editors and reviewers of the publication platforms increases, and the intention to adapt the publications to these (perceived or real) editorial expectations increases. A typical manifestation of this is when, based on our individual experiences and knowledge learned from others (e.g. our doctoral supervisor and more experienced colleagues), we feel that we need to include more references in a publication of a given length – either taking additional relevant ide- 281DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. as from those references or just using them as ‘citationary alibies’ (Roy, A. 2020) to make our work seem better grounded and justified – , because otherwise the journal, the editors or the reviewers will find these references too few and they will not accept our manu- script, saying that we either do not know the discourse well enough or that we do not position ourselves appropriately in it. This risk may be particularly acute for authors who are in some way ‘outsiders’, that is, they work outside the leading global centres of power in a given scientific field, and for their work to be accepted by researchers in the core area, they must particularly “keep in mind the people [they] write about and refer to in [their] work” (Yeung, H.W. et al. 2025, p. 250). The increase in the number of refer- ences may therefore not (only) stem from the author’s motivation and conviction but may also result from the structural characteristics (distortions) of the scientometric-centric aca- demic world and the publishing process in the broader sense, i.e. shifting concepts of aca- demic validation. (Contemporary geographers probably have many experiences with such structural pressures and their influences.) (v) The intensifying pressure of ‘fast pub- lishing’ (Sheppard, E. 2012) under academic neoliberalisation also creates the pressures of ‘fast reading’ and ‘fast referencing’. To improve their career opportunities, schol- ars need to publish more and more, which requires reading more and more and cit- ing more and more works – which, given the finite physical capacities of humans, is only possible if scholars ‘read into’ or ‘run through’ more and more texts, which they do not have time to read in full, and they cite more and more publications based on the information found in these publications during such ‘running through’ acts, even if they may not have the capacity to read the entire work thoroughly. All the above factors probably play a role in the significant increase in the quantity of references experienced over the past decades. However, it would be challenging to disen- tangle how strong the effect of each factor is compared to the others. In my opinion, this leads to an important research methodologi- cal issue, which has a general relevance for the renewed interest in writing and reading practices of human geography (Hones, S. 2025). By more intensively integrating cul- tural anthropology methods into the geogra- phy of science, the geography of knowledge, and the history of geography, the everyday practices of writing publications (along with their temporal and spatial disparities) should be studied more deeply, drawing on the ap- proach and methodology of the geography of the everyday (Eyles, J. 1989; Sullivan, R. 2017). If it is technically possible, a meticu- lous study of the authors’ correspondence with editors and publishers could also be part of the analysis, paying special attention to the either soft or more straightforward ways the editors and publishers as ‘gate- keepers’ are shaping, either along consid- erations of academic or economic interest, the author’s referencing practice during the process of manuscript revision. Such investi- gations should include how, when, and why an author decides at some point during the writing process to add more references or re- move some of them, as well as how structural pressures and the broader academic context shape such decisions, even if subtly. (2) The theoretical part of this article dis- cussed the proliferation of multi-authored works and journal articles instead of books. Although the average number of authors of the publications cited in the two examined books reflects this general trend, the average value of 1.47 authors/publication for Yeung, H.W. (2024) still indicates the large number and importance of single-author publications in international Geography. Likewise, although the two volumes convincingly illustrate the strongly decreasing role of books in favour of journal articles (with the share of the latter in- creasing from 35.1 percent in Harvey, D. [1969] to 64.1 percent in Yeung, H.W. [2024]), books and book chapters still make a difference as their one-quarter share of Yeung’s references indicates. That is not just the proof of our dis- cipline’s peculiarity relative to some other dis- Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.282 ciplines, especially in natural sciences, includ- ing geosciences (cf. Cupples, J. 2020). It is also powerful feedback that, despite the changing disciplinary expectations in global academia, writing single-authored publications and books remains valuable to shaping agendas. (3) Of course, there has always been in- equality, as some authors have more publi- cations referenced in a book or article, while others have fewer. There have always been, and still are, particularly influential authors. However, a significant difference between Harvey’s and Yeung’s books is that the pro- portion of authors cited with at least three publications has grown significantly, and the share of their publications among all refer- enced publications has increased particularly. There are more and more references and more referenced authors, but a few highly influen- tial top authors, whom one could call ‘rock- star geographers’, give an increasing propor- tion of the references. This aligns again with the structural pressures resulting from the quantitative approach of ‘academic neoliber- alisation’. Due to the extreme proliferation of publications, more and more works by more and more authors become available, but it is impossible to understand and systematically follow all of them thoroughly. Scholars cannot do so. Therefore, academic people tend (or are structurally forced) to follow the publica- tions of a few prominent authors published in the leading publication platforms with the greatest attention so that they can still keep themselves updated about the main directions of the rapidly expanding literature, which is a practical and understandable ‘survival strat- egy’ in the vast abundance of information. (4) Harvey’s book contains many refer- ences to works in both Human and Physical Geography, with an outlook especially on the results of philosophy and natural sciences. In Yeung’s volume, the references mainly point to Human Geography and other social sci- ences publications. That reflects a remarkable structural shift, where ‘Geography’, a magic word featured prominently in the titles of both books, increasingly means ‘Human Geography’ instead of ‘Geography’ (with- out adjective), and many authors tend to bring closer Human Geography to social sciences instead of Physical Geography, as Yeung explicitly emphasises that while com- paring his seminal book to that of Harvey: “For Harvey, Physical Geography was cen- tral because he was trying to bring Human Geography closer to Physical Geography. In my case, it’s the opposite.” (Yeung, H.W. et al. 2025, p. 250). These dynamics are in line with Johnston, R.’s (2009, p. 46) general remark that “[b]efore the 1970s few human geographers identified their discipline as a social science, but many now do”. (5) The proportion of women among the authors of cited works has increased signifi- cantly, from zero to about one-quarter. That is a considerable change, but it also indicates that male dominance is still strong in interna- tional Geography. The results draw attention to the fact that despite decades of dedicated work aimed at reducing gender inequalities in Geography and making the discipline more inclusive, the transformation of gen- der power relations is an extremely slow pro- cess and can only lead to sufficient results through prolonged and continued efforts. Also, further extensive studies are needed that more thoroughly explore the role of institutional settings, author affinity circles and production contexts in the persistence of gender inequalities, as well as the academic domains where there has been particularly limited progress in reducing gender injustice. (6) Regarding the geographical back- ground of references, the hegemony of the UK and the USA was very strong half a cen- tury ago and is still very strong today, both in terms of cited authors, but even more so in terms of the publication platforms that publish the referenced works. That illumi- nates the critical role leading publishers as significant beneficiaries of highly uneven power relations in neoliberal academia play in shaping practices of referencing (and writ- ing and reading) in Geography and influenc- ing which geographical ideas will circulate, where, in what form, and how long. From a Central and Eastern Europe perspective, 283DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. the absence of post-communist countries is also remarkable, indicating the lasting im- pact of separating scientific communities in these countries from ‘Western’ academia and a firm focus on empirical, instead of theo- retical, questions in geographical research during the Cold War. At the same time, it is also apparent that this hegemony of author- ship has somewhat declined. References to South American, African and Asian authors have also begun to appear, albeit in smaller numbers, indicating a significant qualitative change, the tangible impact of efforts to inter- nationalise and decolonise Geography, even if there is still much to be done in this field. Acknowledgements: I owe a lot to the organisers and participants of the book launch event of Henry Yeung’s Theory and Explanation in Geography in Cluj- Napoca, Romania, on 27 November 2024, where I presented the first findings of this research and received valuable feedback that inspired the more detailed elaboration of the results in the current manuscript. I am also grateful for the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript. REFERENCES Barnes, T.J. 2001. Lives lived and lives told: Biographies of geography’s quantitative revolu- tion. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19. (4): 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1068/d304 Barnes, T.J. and Bergmann, L.R. 2022. The early years: William Bunge and ‘Theoretical Geography’. In Recalibrating the Quantitative Revolution in Geography: Travels, Networks, Translations. Eds.: Gyuris, F., Michel, B. and Paulus, K., Abingdon– New York, Routledge, 180–193. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003122104-12 Broad, W.J. 1981. The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science 211. (4487): 1137–1139. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.7008199 Bunge, W. 1962. Theoretical Geography. Lund, C.W.K. Gleerup. Bunge, W. 1966. Theoretical Geography. 2nd edition. Lund, C.W.K. Gleerup. Coe, N.M. and Yeung, H.W. 2015. Global Production Networks: Theorizing Economic Development in an Interconnected World. Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o so/9780198703907.001.0001 Cupples, J. 2020. No sense of place: Geoscientisation and the epistemic erasure of geography. New Zealand Geographer 76. (1): 3–13. https://doi. org/10.1111/nzg.12231 Eyles, J. 1989. The geography of everyday life. In Horizons in Human Geography. Eds.: Gregory, D. and Walford, R., London, Palgrave, 102–117. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19839-9_6 Ferretti, F. 2020. History and philosophy of geog- raphy I: Decolonising the discipline, diversifying archives and historicising radicalism. Progress in Human Geography 44. (6): 1161–1171. https://doi. org/10.1177/0309132519893442 Gyuris, F. 2014. The Political Discourse of Spatial Disparities: Geographical Inequalities Between Science and Propaganda. Cham, Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-01508-8 Gyuris, F. 2018. Problem or solution? Academic internationalisation in contemporary human ge- ographies in East Central Europe. Geographische Zeitschrift 106. (1): 38–49. https://doi.org/10.25162/ gz-2018-0004 Gyuris, F., Borbély, G. and Kocsi, V.A. 2025. Global production networks: A geographical review of a research tradition. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74. (3): 301–326. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeo- bull.74.3.5 Gyuris, F., Michel, B. and Paulus, K. (eds.) 2022. Recalibrating the Quantitative Revolution in Geography: Travels, Networks, Translations. Abingdon–New York, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003122104 Hannah, M.G. 2018. Surviving neo-liberalism and the liberal backlash. Geographische Zeitschrift 106. (1): 16–26. https://doi.org/10.25162/gz-2018-0002 Harvey, D. 1969. Explanation in Geography. London, Edward Arnold. Harvey, D. 1989. From managerialism to entrepre- neurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 71. (1): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1 080/04353684.1989.11879583 Hones, S. 2025. Writing and reading human geo- graphy. Progress in Human Geography. Online p u b l i c a t i o n , 9 Au g u s t 2 0 2 5 . h t t p s : / / d o i . org/10.1177/03091325251365281 Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R. and Valentine, G. (eds.) 2008. Key Texts in Human Geography. London–Thousand Oaks – New Delhi–Singapore, SAGE. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446213742 Johnston, R. 2005. On journals. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 37. (1): 2–8. https:// doi.org/10.1068/a3811 Johnston, R. 2008. Explanation in Geography (1969): David Harvey. In Key Texts in Human Geography. Eds.: Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R. and Valentine, G., London–Thousand Oaks – New Delhi–Singapore, SAGE, 25–32. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446213742.n4 Johnston, R. 2009. Geography and the social science tradition. In Key Concepts in Geography. Second Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1068/d304 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003122104-12 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003122104-12 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7008199 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7008199 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198703907.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198703907.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12231 https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12231 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19839-9_6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19839-9_6 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519893442 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519893442 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01508-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01508-8 https://doi.org/10.25162/gz-2018-0004 https://doi.org/10.25162/gz-2018-0004 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003122104 https://doi.org/10.25162/gz-2018-0002 https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.1989.11879583 https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.1989.11879583 https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325251365281 https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325251365281 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213742 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213742 https://doi.org/10.1068/a3811 https://doi.org/10.1068/a3811 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213742.n4 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213742.n4 Gyuris, F. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (3) 269–284.284 edition. Eds.: Clifford, N., Holloway, S., Rice, S.P. and Valentine, G., London–Thousand Oaks – New Delhi–Singapore, SAGE, 46–65. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446213742.n4 Johnston, R. and Sidaway, J.D. 2016. Geography and Geographers: Anglo-American Human Geography since 1945 (7th edition). Abingdon–New York, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203523056 Kornai, J. 1992. The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism. Princeton, CA, Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691228020 Kornai, J. 2006. By Force of Thought: Irregular Memoirs of an Intellectual Journey. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1708.001.0001 Locke, J. 1975 [1690]. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Müller, M. 2021. Worlding geography: From lin- guistic privilege to decolonial anywheres. Progress in Human Geography 45. (6): 1440–1466. https://doi. org/10.1177/0309132520979356 Olechnicka, A., Ploszaj, A. and Celińska-Janowicz, D. 2019. The Geography of Scientific Collaboration. Abingdon–New York, Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315471938 Paasi, A. 2005. Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international jour- nal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 37. (5): 769–789. https://doi. org/10.1068/a3769 Paasi, A. 2015. Academic capitalism and the geopoli- tics of knowledge. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography. Eds.: Agnew, J., Mamadouh, V., Secor, A.J. and Sharp, J., Chichester, Wiley, 507– 523. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118725771.ch37 Paasi, A. 2025. Geopolitics of knowledge. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography. Second edition. Eds.: Mamadouh, V., Koch, N., Woon, C.Y. and Agnew, J., Chichester, Wiley, 56–72. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119753995.ch4 Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. https:// doi.org/10.4159/9780674369542 Puente Lozano, P. 2025. The ironic (mis)fortunes of geographic theory: Sceptic musings on a sexy oxymoron. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74. (3): 253–268. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.2 Radcliffe, S.A. 2022. Decolonizing Geography: An Introduction. Cambridge, Polity Press. Roy, A. 2020. ‘The shadow of her wings’: Respectability politics and the self-narration of geography. Dialogues in Human Geography 10. (1): 19–22. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2043820619898899 Schelhaas, B., Ferretti, F., Reyes Novaes, A. and Schmidt di Friedberg, M. (eds.) 2020. Decolonising and Internationalising Geography: Essays in the History of Contested Science. Cham, Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-49516-9 Sheppard, E. 2012. Geography’s cultures of pub- lication. AAG Newsletter (1 Nov). https://doi. org/10.14433/2012.0004 Sheppard, E. 2015. Piketty and friends: Capitalism, inequality, development, territorialism. The AAG Review of Books 3. (1): 36–42. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2325548X.2015.985538 Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press. Sullivan, R. 2017. The Geography of the Everyday: Toward an Understanding of the Given. Athens, GA, University of Georgia Press. https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt6h1 Thrift, N. 2021. Killer Cities. London, SAGE. https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781529752977 Tissot, M.A. 1881. Mémoire sur la Representation des Surfaces et les Projections des Cartes Géographiques (Memory on the representation of surfaces and the projections of geographical maps). Paris, Gauthier-Villars. Wilkinson, R.G. and Pickett, K. 2009. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London, Allen Lane. Yeung, H.W. 2024. Theory and Explanation in Geography. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119845515 Yeung, H.W., Puente Lozano, P., Benedek, J., Ţoiu, A. and Gyuris, F. 2025. Panel discussion of Henry Yeung’s Theory and Explanation in Geography. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74. (3): 233–252. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.74.3.1 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213742.n4 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213742.n4 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203523056 https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691228020 https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1708.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520979356 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520979356 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315471938 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315471938 https://doi.org/10.1068/a3769 https://doi.org/10.1068/a3769 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118725771.ch37 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119753995.ch4 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119753995.ch4 https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674369542 https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674369542 https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820619898899 https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820619898899 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49516-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49516-9 https://doi.org/10.14433/2012.0004 https://doi.org/10.14433/2012.0004 https://doi.org/10.1080/2325548X.2015.985538 https://doi.org/10.1080/2325548X.2015.985538 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt6h1 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt6h1 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529752977 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529752977 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119845515 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119845515