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.
Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation.
2013583 citationsGeoffrey P. Goodwin, Jared Piazza et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Geoffrey P. Goodwin
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Geoffrey P. Goodwin'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 Geoffrey P. Goodwin with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Geoffrey P. Goodwin more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Geoffrey P. Goodwin
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Geoffrey P. Goodwin. 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 Geoffrey P. Goodwin. The network helps show where Geoffrey P. Goodwin may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Geoffrey P. Goodwin
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Geoffrey P. Goodwin.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Geoffrey P. Goodwin 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 Geoffrey P. Goodwin. Geoffrey P. Goodwin is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Caviola, Lucius, David Althaus, Andreas L. Mogensen, & Geoffrey P. Goodwin. (2021). Population ethical intuitions. Cognition. 218. 104941–104941.5 indexed citations
3.
Sun, Jessie & Geoffrey P. Goodwin. (2020). Do People Want to Be More Moral?. Psychological Science. 31(3). 243–257.44 indexed citations
Cusimano, Corey & Geoffrey P. Goodwin. (2017). Folk Attributions of Control and Intentionality Over Mental States.. Cognitive Science.2 indexed citations
7.
Goodwin, Geoffrey P. & Paul H. Robinson. (2015). The Disutility of Injustice. eYLS (Yale Law School). 85(6). 1940–2033.3 indexed citations
8.
Khemlani, Sangeet, et al.. (2015). Causal relations from kinematic simulations.. Cognitive Science.3 indexed citations
Goodwin, Geoffrey P. & P. N. Johnson‐Laird. (2013). The acquisition of Boolean concepts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 17(3). 128–133.19 indexed citations
Gromet, Dena M. & Geoffrey P. Goodwin. (2011). The “brain buffer”: How neuroscientific evidence affects people’s views of offenders.1 indexed citations
15.
Riis, Jason, Joseph P. Simmons, & Geoffrey P. Goodwin. (2008). Preferences for Enhancement Pharmaceuticals: The Reluctance to Enhance Fundamental Traits. Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania).
Goodwin, Geoffrey P., et al.. (2006). The Psychology of Su Doku Problems. eScholarship (California Digital Library). 28(28).1 indexed citations
19.
Goodwin, Geoffrey P. & P. N. Johnson‐Laird. (2005). Diagnosis of Ambiguous Faults in Simple Networks. eScholarship (California Digital Library). 27(27).1 indexed citations
20.
Goodwin, Geoffrey P.. (1960). The Expanding United Nations. International Affairs. 36(2). 174–187.2 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.