Noah Lemos

883 citations
51 papers · 399 · h-index 9

Impact in

Papers in

Noah Lemos

40 papers receiving 311 citations

Peers

Noah Lemos
Comparison fields: 5 of 67
  • Philosophy 283
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 132
  • History and Philosophy of Science 48
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 133
  • Political Science and International Relations 55
Replace Nicholas L. Sturgeon with:
Nicholas L. Sturgeon United States
Thomas Pink United Kingdom
Derek Brookes Australia
Mark Lance United States
Marcus Willaschek Germany
Charles Parsons United States
Judith Norman United States
Carol Rovane United States
Nigel Pleasants United Kingdom
John Biro United States
Noah Lemos relative to Nicholas L. Sturgeon United States Nicholas L. Sturgeon's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×10×14×
Nicholas L. Sturgeon · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Noah Lemos

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Noah Lemos

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 18 scholars most cited alongside Noah Lemos, 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 Noah Lemos Line = papers co-authored together Noah Lemos links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 51 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 1994118
2 199948
3 200739
4 200432
5 198721
6 199318
7 201414
8 199614
9 19848
10 20047
11 19986
12 19896
13 20156
14 20015
15 20024
16 20094
17 20114
18 20093
19 20203
20 20013

About Noah Lemos

Noah Lemos is a scholar working on Philosophy, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, General Health Professions and Political Science and International Relations, having authored 51 papers that have together received 399 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (24 papers), Philosophy and Theoretical Science (11 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (8 papers), Theology and Philosophy of Evil (4 papers), Ethics in medical practice (4 papers), Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations (3 papers), Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment (3 papers) and Free Will and Agency (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Philosophy (283 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (132 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (48 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (133 citations) and Political Science and International Relations (55 citations). Noah Lemos has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Joel J. Kupperman, Matthew Hanser, Nicholas Agar, Simon Keller, David DeGrazia, John Martin Fischer, Eric T. Olson, Mark A. Bedau, Eyjólfur Kjalar Emilsson and Krister Bykvist. Their work appears in journals such as Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Philosophical Studies, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice and The Journal of Ethics.

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