John Williams

2.3k citations
69 papers · 899 · h-index 18

Impact in

Papers in

John Williams

61 papers receiving 767 citations

Peers

John Williams
Comparison fields: 5 of 101
  • Philosophy 419
  • History and Philosophy of Science 169
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 443
  • General Decision Sciences 31
  • Public Administration 30
Replace Jan van Eijck with:
Jan van Eijck Netherlands
Roger Clarke United Kingdom
John Woods Canada
John L. Pollock United States
Erik C. W. Krabbe Netherlands
Risto Hilpinen Finland
Anil Gupta United States
Edmund L. Gettier United States
Jan Sprenger Netherlands
Ellery Eells United States
John Williams relative to Jan van Eijck Netherlands Jan van Eijck's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.9×
Jan van Eijck · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by John Williams

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by John Williams

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 17 scholars most cited alongside John Williams, 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 John Williams Line = papers co-authored together John Williams links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 69 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201169
2 200756
3 199249
4 200849
5 200746
6 201036
7 200836
8
Decision-Making Under Indeterminacy
201435
9 202033
10 200631
11 199030
12 201026
13 199325
14 201124
15 200623
16 201218
17 201218
18 200818
19 201417
20 201816

About John Williams

John Williams is a scholar working on Philosophy, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, History and Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, having authored 69 papers that have together received 899 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Philosophy and Theoretical Science (30 papers), Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (29 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (11 papers), Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge (8 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (7 papers), Free Will and Agency (6 papers), Advanced Algebra and Logic (3 papers) and Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Philosophy (419 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (169 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (443 citations), General Decision Sciences (31 citations) and Public Administration (30 citations). John Williams has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and Germany. Frequent co-authors include Karel Williams, Colin Haslam, Sushil Jajodia, Steven Noel, Massimiliano Albanese, Sukhdev Johal, Elizabeth A. Barnes, Alan Clarke, Andy Adcroft and Richard Woodward. Their work appears in journals such as The Review of Symbolic Logic, The Philosophical Review, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Australasian Journal of Philosophy and Noûs.

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