Felicitas Kraemer

500 total citations
10 papers, 302 citations indexed

About

Felicitas Kraemer is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology and Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience. According to data from OpenAlex, Felicitas Kraemer has authored 10 papers receiving a total of 302 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 7 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience, 2 papers in Neurology and 1 paper in Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience. Recurrent topics in Felicitas Kraemer's work include Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations (5 papers), Neurological disorders and treatments (2 papers) and Ethics in Clinical Research (1 paper). Felicitas Kraemer is often cited by papers focused on Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations (5 papers), Neurological disorders and treatments (2 papers) and Ethics in Clinical Research (1 paper). Felicitas Kraemer collaborates with scholars based in Netherlands, Germany and United States. Felicitas Kraemer's co-authors include Martin Peterson, Kees van Overveld, Christian Schmidt, Tonio Ball, Ad Aertsen, Andreas Schulze‐Bonhage, Thomas Lengauer and Florian Kraus and has published in prestigious journals such as Frontiers in Psychology, Journal of Medical Ethics and Ethics and Information Technology.

In The Last Decade

Felicitas Kraemer

10 papers receiving 278 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name	h						Papers	Cites
Felicitas Kraemer Netherlands	7	144	87	71	48	47	10	302
Stephen Rainey United Kingdom	12	187 1.3×	24 0.3×	36 0.5×	49 1.0×	14 0.3×	36	315
Danilo Fum Italy	9	103 0.7×	6 0.1×	8 0.1×	10 0.2×	28 0.6×	23	321
Praveen Suthaharan United States	6	104 0.7×	5 0.1×	7 0.1×	8 0.2×	36 0.8×	10	223
Clayton Peterson Canada	11	119 0.8×	23 0.3×	6 0.1×	7 0.1×	28 0.6×	29	328
Adrea J. Truckenmiller United States	12	68 0.5×	21 0.2×	23 0.3×		32 0.7×	43	562
Amy J. Nelson United States	4	229 1.6×	2 0.0×	25 0.4×	16 0.3×	22 0.5×	7	363
Andreas Hula Austria	8	125 0.9×	3 0.0×	31 0.4×	4 0.1×	72 1.5×	18	266
Jason Snell United States	2	218 1.5×	2 0.0×	23 0.3×	16 0.3×	24 0.5×	2	334
Laura Fontanesi Switzerland	5	158 1.1×	12 0.1×	13 0.2×	17 0.4×	14 0.3×	9	253
Germain Lefebvre France	4	181 1.3×	2 0.0×	41 0.6×	9 0.2×	16 0.3×	5	315

Countries citing papers authored by Felicitas Kraemer

Since Specialization

Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Felicitas Kraemer

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Felicitas Kraemer. 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 Felicitas Kraemer. The network helps show where Felicitas Kraemer may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Felicitas Kraemer

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Felicitas Kraemer. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Felicitas Kraemer 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 Felicitas Kraemer. Felicitas Kraemer is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

10 of 10 papers shown

1.

Kraemer, Felicitas, et al.. (2024). Applying Ethics in the Handling of Dual Use Research: The Case of Germany. Research Ethics. 21(2). 228–244. 1 indexed citations

2.

Kraemer, Felicitas. (2014). A Technological Fix for the Self? How Neurotechnologies Shape Who We Are and Whom We Love. AJOB Neuroscience. 5(1). 1–3. 2 indexed citations

3.

Kraemer, Felicitas. (2013). Authenticity or autonomy? When deep brain stimulation causes a dilemma. Journal of Medical Ethics. 39(12). 757–760. 41 indexed citations

4.

Kraemer, Felicitas, et al.. (2012). Intention Concepts and Brain-Machine Interfacing. Frontiers in Psychology. 3. 455–455. 11 indexed citations

5.

Kraemer, Felicitas. (2012). Some Problems with Genetic Emotional Enhancement. The Journal of Value Inquiry. 46(4). 435–447. 2 indexed citations

6.

Kraemer, Felicitas. (2011). Me, Myself and My Brain Implant: Deep Brain Stimulation Raises Questions of Personal Authenticity and Alienation. Neuroethics. 6(3). 483–497. 95 indexed citations

7.

Kraemer, Felicitas. (2011). ONTOLOGY OR PHENOMENOLOGY? HOW THE LVAD CHALLENGES THE EUTHANASIA DEBATE. Bioethics. 27(3). 140–150. 10 indexed citations

8.

Kraemer, Felicitas. (2010). Authenticity Anyone? The Enhancement of Emotions via Neuro-Psychopharmacology. Neuroethics. 4(1). 51–64. 31 indexed citations

9.

Kraemer, Felicitas, Kees van Overveld, & Martin Peterson. (2010). Is there an ethics of algorithms?. Ethics and Information Technology. 13(3). 251–260. 102 indexed citations

10.

Schmidt, Christian & Felicitas Kraemer. (2006). Robots, Dennett and the autonomous: a terminological investigation. Minds and Machines. 16(1). 73–80. 7 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact