Countries where authors publish in Philosophical Issues
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Philosophical Issues. 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 papers published in Philosophical Issues with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Philosophical Issues more than expected).
Fields of papers published in Philosophical Issues
This network shows the impact of papers published in Philosophical Issues. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Philosophical Issues.
About Philosophical Issues
The 655 papers published in Philosophical Issues in the last decades have received a total of 8.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Philosophical Issues usually cover Philosophy (503 papers), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (330 papers), History and Philosophy of Science (88 papers), Cognitive Neuroscience (223 papers) and General Psychology (5 papers) specifically the topics of Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (436 papers), Philosophy and Theoretical Science (324 papers), Free Will and Agency (148 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (145 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (76 papers), Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment (73 papers), Political Philosophy and Ethics (55 papers) and Classical Philosophy and Thought (39 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Philosophical Issues are James Pryor, Ned Block, Paul Boghossian, Philip Pettit, Jaegwon Kim, David Rosenthal, Allan Gibbard, Stewart Cohen, Sharon Street and Fred Dretske.
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.