Peter Forrest
Impact in
- Philosophy top 2%
- Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- War, Ethics, and Justification
- Classical Philosophy and Thought
- Theoretical Computer Science top 10%
Papers in
-
- Philosophy and Theoretical Science 20
- Philosophy 11
- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics 5
- Philosophical Ethics and Theory 3
- Classical Philosophy and Thought 2
- Theology and Philosophy of Evil 2
- Co-authors
- D. M. Armstrong (2 shared papers)
- Journals
- Australasian Journal of Philosophy (6 papers)Analysis (3 papers)Philosophical Papers (2 papers)Philosophical Studies (2 papers)Synthese (1 paper)
- Partner nations
- AustraliaUnited States
In The Last Decade
Peter Forrest
28 papers receiving 271 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 55
- Philosophy 168
- Theoretical Computer Science 16
- History and Philosophy of Science 65
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 151
- Cognitive Neuroscience 134
Countries citing papers authored by Peter Forrest
This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Forrest'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 Peter Forrest with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Forrest more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Peter Forrest
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Forrest. 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 Peter Forrest. The network helps show where Peter Forrest may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 1 scholars most cited alongside Peter Forrest, 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 31 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2002 | 144 | |
| 2 | 1987 | 26 | |
| 3 | 1984 | 24 | |
| 4 | 2002 | 19 | |
| 5 | 2005 | 17 | |
| 6 | 2006 | 10 | |
| 7 | 1988 | 9 | |
| 8 | 1985 | 8 | |
| 9 | 1982 | 7 | |
| 10 | 1990 | 6 | |
| 11 | 1996 | 5 | |
| 12 | 2006 | 5 | |
| 13 | The Dynamics of Belief: A Normative Logic | 1986 | 4 |
| 14 | 2018 | 3 | |
| 15 | 2017 | 3 | |
| 16 | 2013 | 3 | |
| 17 | 2015 | 3 | |
| 18 | 2010 | 3 | |
| 19 | 1992 | 3 | |
| 20 | 1985 | 3 |
About Peter Forrest
Peter Forrest is a scholar working on Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Neuroscience and Political Science and International Relations, having authored 31 papers that have together received 319 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Philosophy and Theoretical Science (20 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (5 papers), Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (5 papers), Philosophical Ethics and Theory (3 papers), Free Will and Agency (3 papers), Classical Philosophy and Thought (2 papers), Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge (2 papers) and Theology and Philosophy of Evil (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Philosophy (168 citations), Theoretical Computer Science (16 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (65 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (151 citations) and Cognitive Neuroscience (134 citations). Peter Forrest has collaborated with scholars based in Australia and United States. Frequent co-authors include D. M. Armstrong. Their work appears in journals such as Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Analysis, Philosophical Papers, Philosophical Studies and Synthese.
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.