Stephen John

1.1k citations
44 papers · 493 · h-index 12

Impact in

Papers in

Stephen John

40 papers receiving 447 citations

Peers

Stephen John
Comparison fields: 5 of 92
  • History and Philosophy of Science 60
  • Philosophy 127
  • Sociology and Political Science 233
  • General Health Professions 90
  • General Decision Sciences 7
Replace William S. Robinson with:
William S. Robinson United States
Alex Voorhoeve United Kingdom
Roy Porter United Kingdom
Steve Sturdy United Kingdom
James H. Cassedy United States
Gopal Sreenivasan United States
Patrice Pinell France
Nicole Hassoun United States
Dan Stone United Kingdom
Ann Steiner United States
Stephen John relative to William S. Robinson United States William S. Robinson's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×6.4×
William S. Robinson · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Stephen John

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Stephen John

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Stephen John, 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 Stephen John Line = papers co-authored together Stephen John links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 44 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201791
2 201456
3 201143
4 201440
5 201828
6 201023
7 201319
8 202218
9 200917
10 200713
11 201612
12 202012
13 202110
14 202010
15 20119
16 20189
17 20239
18 20208
19 20118
20 20236

About Stephen John

Stephen John is a scholar working on Sociology and Political Science, General Health Professions, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations and Physiology, having authored 44 papers that have together received 493 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (7 papers), Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies (7 papers), Ethics in medical practice (5 papers), Risk Perception and Management (5 papers), Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life (4 papers), Biomedical Ethics and Regulation (4 papers), Climate Change Communication and Perception (4 papers) and Climate Change and Geoengineering (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in History and Philosophy of Science (60 citations), Philosophy (127 citations), Sociology and Political Science (233 citations), General Health Professions (90 citations) and General Decision Sciences (7 citations). Stephen John has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and Australia. Frequent co-authors include Juliet A. Usher‐Smith, Rebecca A. Dennison, Anthony Kessel, John McMillan, Angus Dawson, Eli Y. Adashi, Marcel Verweij, Norman Daniels, Richard Ashcroft and Ainsley J. Newson. Their work appears in journals such as Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Synthese, BMC Public Health and Journal of Medical 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