Josh Dever
Impact in
- Philosophy top 1%
- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Classical Philosophy and Thought
-
- Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Papers in
-
- Philosophy and Theoretical Science 11
- Philosophy 11
- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics 7
- Classical Philosophy and Thought 2
- Philosophical Ethics and Theory 2
- Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity 1
- Co-authors
- Herman Cappelen (9 shared papers)Daniel Bonevac (2 shared papers)David Sosa (1 shared paper)D. Sosa (1 shared paper)Nicholas Asher (1 shared paper)
- Journals
- Linguistics and Philosophy (2 papers)Inquiry (2 papers)Philosophical Perspectives (2 papers)Mind (2 papers)The Philosophical Review (2 papers)
- Partner nations
- United StatesHong KongNorway
In The Last Decade
Josh Dever
21 papers receiving 276 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 34
- Philosophy 165
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 179
- History and Philosophy of Science 57
- Language and Linguistics 50
- Health Informatics 5
Countries citing papers authored by Josh Dever
This map shows the geographic impact of Josh Dever'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 Josh Dever with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Josh Dever more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Josh Dever
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Josh Dever. 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 Josh Dever. The network helps show where Josh Dever may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 5 scholars most cited alongside Josh Dever, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
Showing the 20 most-cited of 23 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2013 | 84 | |
| 2 | 2013 | 41 | |
| 3 | 2021 | 38 | |
| 4 | 2001 | 32 | |
| 5 | 1999 | 16 | |
| 6 | 2006 | 14 | |
| 7 | 2009 | 12 | |
| 8 | 2007 | 11 | |
| 9 | 2011 | 11 | |
| 10 | 2016 | 9 | |
| 11 | 2004 | 7 | |
| 12 | 2013 | 7 | |
| 13 | 2001 | 5 | |
| 14 | The Two Envelope Paradox and Using Variables Within the Expectation Formula | 2008 | 2 |
| 15 | 2020 | 2 | |
| 16 | 2003 | 2 | |
| 17 | 2015 | 2 | |
| 18 | Context and Communication | 2016 | 2 |
| 19 | 2024 | 2 | |
| 20 | 2003 | 1 |
About Josh Dever
Josh Dever is a scholar working on Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, Safety Research and History and Philosophy of Science, having authored 23 papers that have together received 301 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Philosophy and Theoretical Science (11 papers), Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (7 papers), Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge (4 papers), Ethics and Social Impacts of AI (3 papers), Classical Philosophy and Thought (2 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (2 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (2 papers) and Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Philosophy (165 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (179 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (57 citations), Language and Linguistics (50 citations) and Health Informatics (5 citations). Josh Dever has collaborated with scholars based in United States, Hong Kong and Norway. Frequent co-authors include Herman Cappelen, Daniel Bonevac, David Sosa, D. Sosa and Nicholas Asher. Their work appears in journals such as Linguistics and Philosophy, Inquiry, Philosophical Perspectives, Mind and The Philosophical Review.
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.