C. L. Ten

671 citations
27 papers · 275 · h-index 9

Impact in

Papers in

C. L. Ten

23 papers receiving 213 citations

Peers

C. L. Ten
Comparison fields: 5 of 57
  • Philosophy 55
  • Political Science and International Relations 114
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 51
  • Religious studies 13
  • Sociology and Political Science 109
Replace S. E. Marshall with:
S. E. Marshall United Kingdom
Igor Primoratz Israel
Robin West United States
Fred R. Berger United States
Elizabeth Brake United States
Richard Norman United Kingdom
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Sabina Lovibond United Kingdom
James M. Humber United States
Andrew Norris United States
C. L. Ten relative to S. E. Marshall United Kingdom S. E. Marshall's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×1.8×
S. E. Marshall · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by C. L. Ten

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of C. L. Ten'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 C. L. Ten with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites C. L. Ten more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by C. L. Ten

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by C. L. Ten. 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 C. L. Ten. The network helps show where C. L. Ten may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 18 scholars most cited alongside C. L. Ten, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with C. L. Ten Line = papers co-authored together C. L. Ten links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 27 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
Mill On Liberty
198064
2
Crime, guilt, and punishment
198751
3 199848
4
The Moral Circle and the Self: Chinese and Western Approaches
200322
5 199113
6 196810
7 20089
8 19768
9
Paternalism and Morality
19718
10 19907
11
The moral circle and the self: Chinese and western perspectives
20035
12 19984
13 19724
14 20023
15 19693
16 20002
17 19912
18 19942
19 19892
20 20001

About C. L. Ten

C. L. Ten is a scholar working on Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science, Anthropology, Cognitive Neuroscience and Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health, having authored 27 papers that have together received 275 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Political Theory and Influence (8 papers), Free Will and Agency (3 papers), Historical and Literary Studies (3 papers), Emile Durkheim and Sociology (3 papers), Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare (2 papers), Reproductive Health and Technologies (2 papers), Legal and Social Philosophy (2 papers) and Political Philosophy and Ethics (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Philosophy (55 citations), Political Science and International Relations (114 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (51 citations), Religious studies (13 citations) and Sociology and Political Science (109 citations). C. L. Ten has collaborated with scholars based in Australia, Singapore and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Sor‐hoon Tan, Wendy Donner, Terence Irwin, Mary Lyndon Shanley, John Skorupski, Jonathan Riley, Peter Nicholson, Philip Kitcher, Andy Hamilton and Fred Wilson. Their work appears in journals such as Utilitas, Philosophy, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Bioethics and Ethics.

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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact