Adam Leite

838 citations
27 papers · 266 · h-index 9

Impact in

Papers in

Adam Leite

26 papers receiving 241 citations

Peers

Adam Leite
Comparison fields: 5 of 33
  • Philosophy 233
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 132
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 107
  • History and Philosophy of Science 19
  • Family Practice 5
Replace Matthew A. Benton with:
Matthew A. Benton United States
E. J. Coffman United States
Elizabeth Jackson Canada
Berislav Marušić United States
Thomas Grundmann Germany
Trent Dougherty United States
Aaron Z. Zimmerman United States
Tomás Bogardus United States
Baron Reed United States
Neil Sinhababu Singapore
Adam Leite relative to Matthew A. Benton United States Matthew A. Benton's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×1.9×
Matthew A. Benton · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Adam Leite

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Adam Leite

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 13 scholars most cited alongside Adam Leite, 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 Adam Leite Line = papers co-authored together Adam Leite links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 27 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201145
2 200443
3 200739
4 200736
5 201613
6 200513
7 201212
8 20119
9 20108
10 20166
11 20055
12 20075
13 20054
14 20183
15
Skepticism, sensitivity, and closure, or why the closure principle is irrelevant to external world skepticism
20043
16 19913
17 20153
18 20053
19 20043
20 20193

About Adam Leite

Adam Leite is a scholar working on Philosophy, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Political Science and International Relations and Sociology and Political Science, having authored 27 papers that have together received 266 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (24 papers), Philosophy and Theoretical Science (14 papers), Political Philosophy and Ethics (5 papers), Theology and Philosophy of Evil (5 papers), Free Will and Agency (4 papers), Mental Health and Psychiatry (3 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (3 papers) and Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Philosophy (233 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (132 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (107 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (19 citations) and Family Practice (5 citations). Adam Leite has collaborated with scholars based in United States, Canada and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Kate Abramson, Wallace Matson, Nishi Shah, Andrew Reisner, Ralph Wedgwood, Andrew Reisner, Clayton Littlejohn, Hannah Ginsborg, Asbjørn Steglich‐Petersen and Jonas Olson. Their work appears in journals such as Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, The Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Issues, Philosophical Studies and Ratio.

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