Phil Dowe
Impact in
- History and Philosophy of Science top 0.2%
- Philosophy and History of Science
- Philosophy top 0.5%
- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Papers in
-
- Philosophy and History of Science 25
- Philosophy 16
- Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics 13
- Co-authors
- Stephen Barker (2 shared papers)Wesley C. Salmon (1 shared paper)Merrilee H. Salmon (1 shared paper)Jonathan Schaffer (1 shared paper)
- Journals
- Philosophy of Science (9 papers)Analysis (3 papers)Erkenntnis (2 papers)Metascience (2 papers)The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2 papers)
- Partner nations
- AustraliaUnited Kingdom
In The Last Decade
Phil Dowe
38 papers receiving 799 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 73
- History and Philosophy of Science 535
- Philosophy 351
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 387
- General Decision Sciences 27
- Cognitive Neuroscience 160
Countries citing papers authored by Phil Dowe
This map shows the geographic impact of Phil Dowe'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 Phil Dowe with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Phil Dowe more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Phil Dowe
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Phil Dowe. 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 Phil Dowe. The network helps show where Phil Dowe may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 4 scholars most cited alongside Phil Dowe, 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 44 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2000 | 268 | |
| 2 | 1992 | 145 | |
| 3 | 2001 | 93 | |
| 4 | 1995 | 54 | |
| 5 | 2003 | 47 | |
| 6 | 1992 | 37 | |
| 7 | 2003 | 27 | |
| 8 | Causes are physically connected to their effects: Why preventers and omissions are not causes | 2004 | 24 |
| 9 | 1996 | 24 | |
| 10 | 2010 | 20 | |
| 11 | 2005 | 18 | |
| 12 | 1995 | 16 | |
| 13 | 1992 | 16 | |
| 14 | 2004 | 15 | |
| 15 | 2000 | 13 | |
| 16 | 2009 | 13 | |
| 17 | 2000 | 11 | |
| 18 | 2005 | 11 | |
| 19 | Time's Arrow Today | 1996 | 8 |
| 20 | 2003 | 8 |
About Phil Dowe
Phil Dowe is a scholar working on History and Philosophy of Science, Philosophy, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics and Artificial Intelligence, having authored 44 papers that have together received 929 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Philosophy and History of Science (25 papers), Philosophy and Theoretical Science (13 papers), Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (13 papers), Quantum Mechanics and Applications (8 papers), Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference (3 papers), Probability and Statistical Research (2 papers), Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge (2 papers) and Complex Systems and Decision Making (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in History and Philosophy of Science (535 citations), Philosophy (351 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (387 citations), General Decision Sciences (27 citations) and Cognitive Neuroscience (160 citations). Phil Dowe has collaborated with scholars based in Australia and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Stephen Barker, Wesley C. Salmon, Merrilee H. Salmon and Jonathan Schaffer. Their work appears in journals such as Philosophy of Science, Analysis, Erkenntnis, Metascience and The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
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.