Archie J. Bahm
- Sociology and Political Science
- Management Science and Operations Research top 10%
- Information Systems and Management top 10%
- Philosophy top 10%
- Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
- Topics
- Indian and Buddhist Studies (6 papers)Complex Systems and Decision Making (5 papers)Chinese history and philosophy (4 papers)
- Partner nations
- United States
In The Last Decade
Archie J. Bahm
45 papers receiving 192 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 79
- Sociology and Political Science 58
- Management Science and Operations Research 40
- Information Systems and Management 37
- Philosophy 26
- Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management 23
Countries citing papers authored by Archie J. Bahm
This map shows the geographic impact of Archie J. Bahm's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Archie J. Bahm with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Archie J. Bahm more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Archie J. Bahm
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Archie J. Bahm. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Archie J. Bahm. The network helps show where Archie J. Bahm may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Archie J. Bahm
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Archie J. Bahm. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Archie J. Bahm based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Archie J. Bahm. Archie J. Bahm is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | Tao teh king | 1 |
| 3 | Polarity, dialectic, and organicity | 2 |
| 4 | Wholes and parts of things | 2 |
| 5 | 6 | |
| 6 | Organic logic. An introductory essay | 1 |
| 7 | 9 | |
| 8 | Why Be Moral | 1 |
| 9 | Comparative philosophy : western, Indian and Chinese philosophies compared. | 6 |
| 10 | 1 | |
| 11 | 1 | |
| 12 | 2 | |
| 13 | 0 | |
| 14 | 1 | |
| 15 | 1 | |
| 16 | Yoga : union with the ultimate : a new version of the ancient Yoga sutras of Patanjali | 1 |
| 17 | 1 | |
| 18 | 1 | |
| 19 | 8 | |
| 20 | 4 |
About Archie J. Bahm
Archie J. Bahm is a scholar working on Religious studies, Philosophy and History and Philosophy of Science, having authored 55 papers that have together received 248 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Indian and Buddhist Studies (6 papers), Complex Systems and Decision Making (5 papers) and Chinese history and philosophy (4 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Information Systems and Management (37 citations), General Psychology (6 citations) and History and Philosophy of Science (21 citations). Archie J. Bahm has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Justus Buchler, Louis Renou, Charles O. Hucker, Paul Kurtz, Paul Welsh, Chauncey S. Goodrich and 老子. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Business Ethics, The Philosophical Review and The Journal of Philosophy.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.