Natalja Deng

576 citations
21 papers · 182 · h-index 8

Impact in

Papers in

Natalja Deng

17 papers receiving 172 citations

Peers

Natalja Deng
Comparison fields: 5 of 37
  • History and Philosophy of Science 65
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 114
  • Philosophy 92
  • General Decision Sciences 4
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 27
Replace Jiri Benovsky with:
Jiri Benovsky Switzerland
Nikk Effingham United Kingdom
Giuliano Torrengo Italy
Craig Bourne United Kingdom
Matjaž Potrč Slovenia
Sam Coleman United Kingdom
Travis Dumsday Canada
Peter Forrest Australia
Anna Marmodoro United Kingdom
Simon Prosser United Kingdom
Natalja Deng relative to Jiri Benovsky Switzerland Jiri Benovsky's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Jiri Benovsky · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Natalja Deng

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Natalja Deng

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 3 scholars most cited alongside Natalja Deng, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Natalja Deng Line = papers co-authored together Natalja Deng links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 21 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201231
2 201328
3 201327
4 201516
5 201813
6 201513
7 201713
8 20179
9 20156
10 20176
11 20105
12
God and Time
20184
13 20243
14 20153
15 20153
16 20191
17 20211
18
SEP Entry: Eternity in Christian Thought
20180
19 20230
20 20240

About Natalja Deng

Natalja Deng is a scholar working on Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, History and Philosophy of Science, Philosophy, Social Psychology and Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, having authored 21 papers that have together received 182 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Philosophy and Theoretical Science (11 papers), Theology and Philosophy of Evil (7 papers), Philosophy, Science, and History (6 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (5 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (4 papers), Quantum Mechanics and Applications (3 papers), Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (2 papers) and Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in History and Philosophy of Science (65 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (114 citations), Philosophy (92 citations), General Decision Sciences (4 citations) and Cognitive Neuroscience (27 citations). Natalja Deng has collaborated with scholars based in South Korea, United Kingdom and Switzerland. Frequent co-authors include Andrew J. Latham, Kristie Miller and Klaas Landsman. Their work appears in journals such as Philosophia, Inquiry, Philosophical Studies, Ratio and The Southern Journal of Philosophy.

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