Peter Urbach

2k citations
29 papers · 1.4k · h-index 15

Impact in

Papers in

Peter Urbach

27 papers receiving 1.1k citations

Peers

Peter Urbach
Comparison fields: 5 of 127
  • History and Philosophy of Science 459
  • General Decision Sciences 91
  • General Psychology 41
  • Philosophy 324
  • Statistics and Probability 213
Replace Wolfgang Stegmüller with:
Wolfgang Stegmüller Germany
Lorenz Krüger Germany
Colin Howson United Kingdom
Andrew I. Dale South Africa
John Beatty United States
Donald A. Gillies United Kingdom
Allan Franklin United States
Rudolph Carnap
Peter Lipton United Kingdom
Brian Ellis Australia
Peter Urbach relative to Wolfgang Stegmüller Germany Wolfgang Stegmüller's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×3.3×
Wolfgang Stegmüller · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Peter Urbach

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Peter Urbach

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 9 scholars most cited alongside Peter Urbach, 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 Peter Urbach Line = papers co-authored together Peter Urbach links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 29 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 1991275
2 1993263
3 1994204
4 197497
5 197496
6 199178
7
Francis Bacon's Philosophy of Science: An Account and a Reappraisal
198773
8 198565
9
Novum organum : with other parts of The great instauration
199437
10 199335
11 198118
12 198118
13 197816
14 198316
15 198915
16 198210
17 19787
18
Clinical trial and random error.
19877
19 19855
20 19915

About Peter Urbach

Peter Urbach is a scholar working on History and Philosophy of Science, Statistics and Probability, Philosophy, General Psychology and Artificial Intelligence, having authored 29 papers that have together received 1.4k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Philosophy and History of Science (13 papers), Philosophy, Science, and History (10 papers), Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference (8 papers), Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference (5 papers), Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (5 papers), Historical Philosophy and Science (4 papers), Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials (3 papers) and Cognitive Abilities and Testing (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in History and Philosophy of Science (459 citations), General Decision Sciences (91 citations), General Psychology (41 citations), Philosophy (324 citations) and Statistics and Probability (213 citations). Peter Urbach has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom and United States. Frequent co-authors include Colin Howson, Giovanni Parmigiani, C. Howson, Michael Goldstein, Aa, Francis Bacon, John K. Gibson, Michael V. Williams and John Krige. Their work appears in journals such as The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Science, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Statistics in Medicine and Nature.

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