Mikael Stenmark

758 citations
43 papers · 265 · h-index 9

Impact in

Papers in

Mikael Stenmark

34 papers receiving 214 citations

Peers

Mikael Stenmark
Comparison fields: 5 of 73
  • History and Philosophy of Science 48
  • Philosophy 86
  • Religious studies 25
  • Sociology and Political Science 106
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law 24
Replace John F. Haught with:
John F. Haught United States
Brian Thomas Swimme United States
Daniel A. Dombrowski United States
Christopher Key Chapple United States
Sallie McFague Greece
Sam D. Gill United States
Bernard S. Bachrach United States
Roy W. Perrett New Zealand
Fred D. Miller United States
Ernst M. Conradie South Africa
Mikael Stenmark relative to John F. Haught United States John F. Haught's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.4×
John F. Haught · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Mikael Stenmark

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Mikael Stenmark

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

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

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 43 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
Scientism: Science, Ethics and Religion
200243
2 199732
3 200228
4 201028
5 201716
6 202111
7 201810
8
Miljöetik och miljövård
200010
9 20128
10 20207
11 20186
12 20056
13 20146
14 20205
15 20124
16 20174
17 20044
18 20123
19 19973
20 20093

About Mikael Stenmark

Mikael Stenmark is a scholar working on Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, History and Philosophy of Science, Education and Health, having authored 43 papers that have together received 265 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Evolution and Science Education (9 papers), Theology and Philosophy of Evil (8 papers), Religion and Society Interactions (7 papers), Religion, Ecology, and Ethics (6 papers), Biblical Studies and Interpretation (4 papers), Religious Education and Schools (4 papers), Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology (4 papers) and Study and Philosophy of Religion (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in History and Philosophy of Science (48 citations), Philosophy (86 citations), Religious studies (25 citations), Sociology and Political Science (106 citations) and Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (24 citations). Mikael Stenmark has collaborated with scholars based in Sweden, United States and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Mia Lövheim, Steve Fuller, John Hedley Brooke, Jon H. Roberts, Ronald L. Numbers, John H. Evans, John F. Haught, Michael Ruse, David C. Lindberg and Peter Harrison. Their work appears in journals such as Religious Studies, Zygon®, Theology and Science, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Social Epistemology.

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