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 John Dewey'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 John Dewey with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Dewey more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Dewey. 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 John Dewey. The network helps show where John Dewey may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Dewey
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Dewey.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Dewey 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 John Dewey. John Dewey 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.
Dewey, John. (2019). Kunst als Erfahrung. Tijdschrift voor Philosophie. 45(1). 81–90.
Dewey, John. (2013). The Ego as Cause. Annals of Neurosciences. 20(3). 116–7.1 indexed citations
4.
Dewey, John & Thomas M. Alexander. (2013). A Common Faith: Second Edition.1 indexed citations
5.
Dewey, John & Martin Suhr. (2008). Logik : die Theorie der Forschung. Suhrkamp eBooks.20 indexed citations
6.
Dewey, John, et al.. (2008). O Desenvolvimento do Pragmatismo Americano. LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas). 5(2).1 indexed citations
7.
Dewey, John & Martin Suhr. (2003). Philosophie und Zivilisation. Suhrkamp eBooks.3 indexed citations
8.
Dewey, John, et al.. (2002). John Dewey and American Education.4 indexed citations
9.
Dewey, John, et al.. (2000). Demokratie und Erziehung : eine Einleitung in die philosophische Pädagogik : mit einer umfangreichen Auswahlbibliographie. Beltz eBooks.5 indexed citations
10.
Dewey, John & Jo Ann Boydston. (1985). Essays on philosophy and psychology 1912-1914.3 indexed citations
11.
Dewey, John & Jo Ann Boydston. (1985). Essays on philosophy and education 1916-1917.6 indexed citations
12.
Horne, Herman Harrell & John Dewey. (1978). The democratic philosophy of education: Companion to Dewey's Democracy and education : exposition and comment. Medical Entomology and Zoology.1 indexed citations
13.
Dewey, John. (1971). Early essays and the study of ethics : a syllabus.2 indexed citations
14.
Dewey, John. (1969). Early essays and outlines of a critical theory of ethics.
15.
Dewey, John & Gérard Deledalle. (1967). Logique. La théorie de l'enquête. Presses Universitaires de France eBooks. 160(4).38 indexed citations
16.
Dewey, John. (1964). Demokratie und Erziehung : eine Einleitung in die philosophische Pädagogik.28 indexed citations
17.
Dewey, John & Joseph Ratner. (1963). Philosophy, psychology and social prectice.4 indexed citations
18.
Cantril, Hadley, et al.. (1960). The morning notes of Adelbert Ames, Jr.. Rutgers University Press eBooks.11 indexed citations
19.
Dewey, John. (1954). Evolution and Ethics. 78(2). 57–66.3 indexed citations
20.
Dewey, John, S. Radhakrishnan, & George Santayana. (1951). On Philosophical Synthesis. Philosophy East and West. 1(1). 3–3.5 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.