Countries citing papers authored by Frederick Burkhardt
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Frederick Burkhardt'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 Frederick Burkhardt with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Frederick Burkhardt more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Frederick Burkhardt
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Frederick Burkhardt. 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 Frederick Burkhardt. The network helps show where Frederick Burkhardt may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Frederick Burkhardt
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Frederick Burkhardt.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Frederick Burkhardt 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 Frederick Burkhardt. Frederick Burkhardt is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Burkhardt, Frederick, et al.. (2016). Some Problems of Philosophy , The Works of William James.1 indexed citations
2.
Burkhardt, Frederick & Stephen Jay Gould. (2008). Origins. Cambridge University Press eBooks.2 indexed citations
3.
Burkhardt, Frederick. (2001). Darwin and the copley medal. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society: Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge. 145(4). 510–518.4 indexed citations
4.
Burkhardt, Frederick, et al.. (2001). Evolution. Cambridge University Press eBooks.1 indexed citations
5.
Darwin, Charles & Frederick Burkhardt. (1996). Charles Darwin's Letters: A Selection, 1825–1859. Medical Entomology and Zoology.9 indexed citations
6.
Burkhardt, Frederick, et al.. (1995). A Calendar of the Correspondence of Charles Darwin, 1821-1882: With Supplement. Cambridge University Press eBooks.3 indexed citations
7.
James, William D., Frederick Burkhardt, Fredson Bowers, & Ignas K. Skrupskelis. (1988). Essays, Comments, and Reviews the Works of William James, Volume XVII. Transactions of The Charles S Peirce Society. 24(4).
8.
Burkhardt, Frederick, et al.. (1988). The Works of William James: Essays in Psychical Research.3 indexed citations
James, William & Frederick Burkhardt. (1983). The Principles of Psychology, the Works of William James. Transactions of The Charles S Peirce Society. 19(2).13 indexed citations
13.
James, William, Frederick Burkhardt, Ignas K. Skrupskelis, & Fredson Bowers. (1982). Essays in religion and morality. DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library).35 indexed citations
James, William, Frederick Burkhardt, Ignas K. Skrupskelis, & John J. McDermott. (1978). Essays in Philosophy. Medical Entomology and Zoology.50 indexed citations
Burkhardt, Frederick, et al.. (1976). An annotated calendar of the letters of Charles Darwin in the Library of the American Philosophical Society.2 indexed citations
Burkhardt, Frederick. (1958). American Council of Learned Societies. PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. 73(5-Part2). 7–7.
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.