Felipe Romero

1.5k total citations · 1 hit paper
10 papers, 569 citations indexed

About

Felipe Romero is a scholar working on Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, History and Philosophy of Science and Cognitive Neuroscience. According to data from OpenAlex, Felipe Romero has authored 10 papers receiving a total of 569 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 7 papers in Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, 5 papers in History and Philosophy of Science and 3 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience. Recurrent topics in Felipe Romero's work include Meta-analysis and systematic reviews (7 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (5 papers) and scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2 papers). Felipe Romero is often cited by papers focused on Meta-analysis and systematic reviews (7 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (5 papers) and scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2 papers). Felipe Romero collaborates with scholars based in Netherlands, Australia and United States. Felipe Romero's co-authors include Katherine S. Corker, Melissa Kline Struhl, Michèle B. Nuijten, Fiona Fidler, Anne M. Scheel, Laura D. Scherer, Simine Vazire, Julia M. Rohrer, Felix D. Schönbrodt and Tom E Hardwicke and has published in prestigious journals such as Annual Review of Psychology, Philosophy of Science and Synthese.

In The Last Decade

Felipe Romero

10 papers receiving 551 citations

Hit Papers

align trajectories

What are hit papers?

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.

Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

2021 334 citations Brian A. Nosek, Tom E Hardwicke et al. Annual Review of Psychology profile →

Peers

Felipe Romero

SPU

CN

SPS

HPS

SP

Coosje Lisabet Sterre Veldkamp Netherlands

Hannah Moshontz United States

Aba Szollosi Hungary

Hilde Elisabeth Maria Augusteijn Netherlands

Aurélien Allard Switzerland

Mallory C. Kidwell United States

Andrew Maul United States

Farid Anvari Denmark

Chelsey L. Holden United States

Chris Hartgerink Netherlands

Coosje Lisabet Sterre Veldkamp Netherlands

Felipe Romero

284 ×1.8

SPU

108 ×1.0

CN

104 ×1.1

SPS

33 ×0.3

HPS

90 ×1.2

SP

Citations per year, relative to Felipe Romero Felipe Romero (= 1×) peers Coosje Lisabet Sterre Veldkamp

Countries citing papers authored by Felipe Romero

Since Specialization

Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Felipe Romero

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Felipe Romero

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Felipe Romero. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Felipe Romero 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 Felipe Romero. Felipe Romero 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.

Ravenzwaaij, Don van, Marjan Bakker, Remco Heesen, et al.. (2023). Perspectives on scientific error. Royal Society Open Science. 10(7). 230448–230448. 5 indexed citations

2.

Nosek, Brian A., Tom E Hardwicke, Hannah Moshontz, et al.. (2021). Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology. 73(1). 719–748. 334 indexed citations breakdown →

3.

Colombo, Matteo, et al.. (2020). Intuitions About the Reference of Proper Names: a Meta-Analysis. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 12(4). 745–774. 11 indexed citations

4.

Romero, Felipe & Jan Sprenger. (2020). Scientific self-correction: the Bayesian way. Synthese. 198(S23). 5803–5823. 7 indexed citations

5.

Romero, Felipe. (2020). The Division of Replication Labor. Philosophy of Science. 87(5). 1014–1025. 4 indexed citations

6.

Romero, Felipe. (2019). Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis. Philosophy Compass. 14(11). 86 indexed citations

7.

Romero, Felipe. (2018). Who Should Do Replication Labor?. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 1(4). 516–537. 21 indexed citations

8.

Romero, Felipe. (2017). Novelty versus Replicability: Virtues and Vices in the Reward System of Science. Philosophy of Science. 84(5). 1031–1043. 36 indexed citations

9.

Romero, Felipe. (2016). Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 60. 55–69. 27 indexed citations

10.

Romero, Felipe. (2015). Why there isn’t inter-level causation in mechanisms. Synthese. 192(11). 3731–3755. 38 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