Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
This map shows the geographic impact of Dan Sperber'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 Dan Sperber with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Dan Sperber more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Dan Sperber. 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 Dan Sperber. The network helps show where Dan Sperber may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Dan Sperber
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Dan Sperber.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Dan Sperber 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 Dan Sperber. Dan Sperber is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber. (2019). Replies to Critics. Teorema: Revista internacional de filosofía. 38(1). 139–156.1 indexed citations
4.
Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber. (2019). Resumen de The Enigma of Reason. Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja). 38(1). 59–67.
5.
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. (2010). TEORIA DA RELEVÂNCIA. LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas). 5. 221–268.6 indexed citations
6.
Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber. (2010). Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania).7 indexed citations
7.
Sperber, Dan. (2008). Une pensée à l'orée des sciences cognitives. 70–71.
8.
Sperber, Dan. (2000). Metarepresentations : a multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press eBooks.241 indexed citations
9.
Sperber, Dan, et al.. (1999). Des idées qui viennent.3 indexed citations
10.
Sperber, Dan. (1998). INTERPRETATÍVNA ETNOGRAFIA A TEORETICKÁ ANTROPOLÓGIA. 179–193.
11.
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. (1996). Fodor's frame problem and relevance theory - Response. UCL Discovery (University College London).1 indexed citations
12.
Sperber, Dan. (1996). La contagion des idées : théorie naturaliste de la culture.18 indexed citations
13.
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. (1994). La relevancia: comunicación y procesos cognitivos.19 indexed citations
14.
Sperber, Dan, et al.. (1991). La Pertinence, communication et cognition, collection « Propositions ». Revue de métaphysique et de morale. 96(3).
15.
Sperber, Dan, et al.. (1990). Retórica y pertinencia. Revista de occidente. 5–26.2 indexed citations
Sperber, Dan, et al.. (1985). On choosing the context for utterance interpretation. UCL Discovery (University College London).9 indexed citations
18.
Sperber, Dan, et al.. (1975). El estructuralismo en antropología.2 indexed citations
19.
Chomsky, Noam, et al.. (1969). La linguistique cartésienne : un chapitre de l'histoire de la pensée rationaliste ; suivi de, La nature formelle du langage. Éditions du Seuil eBooks.
20.
Sperber, Dan. (1968). Le structuralisme en anthropologie. Seuil eBooks.8 indexed citations
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.