Flint Schier

694 citations
11 papers · 321 · h-index 5

Impact in

Papers in

Flint Schier

10 papers receiving 267 citations

Peers

Flint Schier
Comparison fields: 5 of 79
  • General Decision Sciences 19
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 87
  • History and Philosophy of Science 26
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts 24
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 73
Replace Peter Eisenberg with:
Peter Eisenberg Germany
Robert Oppenheimer United States
R. M. Wilson United States
James Hoopes United States
Benedetto Croce
Tom Wolfe United States
George H. Lewis United States
Paul Martin Lester United States
Richard Middleton United Kingdom
Burnet M. Hobgood United States
Flint Schier relative to Peter Eisenberg Germany Peter Eisenberg's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×10×13×
Peter Eisenberg · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Flint Schier

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Flint Schier

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 8 scholars most cited alongside Flint Schier, 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 Flint Schier Line = papers co-authored together Flint Schier links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

11 of 11 papers shown
#Work
1 1984157
2 198685
3 198948
4 198511
5 19895
6
Virtue and Taste: Essays on Politics, Ethics, and Aesthetics: In Memory of Flint Schier
19934
7 19804
8 19873
9 19832
10 19861
11 19881

About Flint Schier

Flint Schier is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Visual Arts and Performing Arts, Sociology and Political Science, Literature and Literary Theory and Philosophy, having authored 11 papers that have together received 321 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Visual Culture and Art Theory (2 papers), Aesthetic Perception and Analysis (2 papers), Irish and British Studies (1 paper), Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (1 paper), Modernist Literature and Criticism (1 paper) and Ethics, Aesthetics, and Art (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in General Decision Sciences (19 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (87 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (26 citations), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (24 citations) and Cognitive Neuroscience (73 citations). Flint Schier has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom and Finland. Frequent co-authors include Diana Raffman, Neil Tennant, Florian von Schilcher, Roger Scruton, Dudley Knowles, R. A. Sharpe, Stephen Stich and John Skorupski. Their work appears in journals such as The Philosophical Quarterly, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Philosophical Papers, The Philosophical Review and Cambridge University Press eBooks.

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