Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning
Impact in
- Philosophy 107
- Authors
- Douglas WaltonErik C. W. Krabbe
- Journal
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w5901867 →Countries where authors are citing Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning
This map shows the geographic impact of Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. 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 Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning
This network shows the impact of Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.
About Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning
This paper, published in 1995, received 896 indexed citations . Written by Douglas Walton and Erik C. W. Krabbe. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Artificial Intelligence (680 citations), Philosophy (107 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (105 citations), Sociology and Political Science (96 citations) and Language and Linguistics (79 citations). Published in Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w5901867.