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.
Countries citing papers authored by John Hawthorne
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of John Hawthorne'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 Hawthorne with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Hawthorne more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Hawthorne. 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 Hawthorne. The network helps show where John Hawthorne may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Hawthorne
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Hawthorne.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Hawthorne 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 Hawthorne. John Hawthorne 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.
Hawthorne, John, et al.. (2024). Dogmatism and Inquiry. Mind. 133(531). 651–676.5 indexed citations
2.
Spectre, Levi & John Hawthorne. (2023). Doncaster pandas and Caesar's armadillo. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 108(2). 360–373.1 indexed citations
3.
Hawthorne, John, et al.. (2022). A New Hope. The Journal of Philosophy. 119(1). 5–32.3 indexed citations
Yli‐Vakkuri, Juhani & John Hawthorne. (2018). Narrow Content. Oxford University Press eBooks.14 indexed citations
7.
Hawthorne, John, et al.. (2017). Scepticism. Oxford University Press eBooks.1 indexed citations
8.
Hawthorne, John, et al.. (2014). Conditionals, probability, and paradox: themes from the philosophy of Dorothy Edgington. Oxford University Press eBooks. 3(1). 38–9.13 indexed citations
9.
Hawthorne, John & Ernest Lepore. (2011). On Words. The Journal of Philosophy. 108(9). 447–485.53 indexed citations
Mattingly, David, et al.. (2009). The Archaeology of Fazzan. Volume 1, Synthesis.. Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester).2 indexed citations
12.
Mattingly, David, et al.. (2009). The Archaeology of Fazzan. Volume 2, Site gazetteer, pottery and other survey finds. Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester).1 indexed citations
13.
Hawthorne, John & Jason Stanley. (2008). Knowledge and Action. The Journal of Philosophy. 105(10). 571–590.377 indexed citations
Hawthorne, John & David Manley. (2005). Review of Stephen Mumford's dispositions. Noûs. 39(1).6 indexed citations
16.
Arntzenius, Frank & John Hawthorne. (2005). Gunk and Continuous Variation. The Monist. 88(4). 441–465.16 indexed citations
17.
Hawthorne, John & Brian Weatherson. (2004). Chopping Up Gunk. The Monist. 87(3). 339–350.8 indexed citations
18.
Hawthorne, John & J. A. Cover. (2000). Infinite Analysis and the Problem of the Lucky Proof. 32(2). 151–165.5 indexed citations
19.
Hawthorne, John. (1993). Meaning and Evidence: A Reply to Lewis. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 71(2).1 indexed citations
20.
Cover, J. A. & John Hawthorne. (1990). Leibniz on Superessentialism and World-Bound Individuals. 22(2).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.