Frontiers of Philosophy in China

306 papers and 398 indexed citations i.

About

The 306 papers published in Frontiers of Philosophy in China in the last decades have received a total of 398 indexed citations. Papers published in Frontiers of Philosophy in China usually cover Sociology and Political Science (163 papers), Philosophy (78 papers) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (33 papers) specifically the topics of Chinese history and philosophy (133 papers), Classical Philosophy and Thought (19 papers) and Philosophy and Theoretical Science (15 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Frontiers of Philosophy in China are John Hyman, Malcolm Warner, Xianglong Zhang, Jonathan Dancy, Xinzhong Yao, Xiangjun Li, James O. Young, Chris Fraser, Roger T. Ames and Yong Huang.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Frontiers of Philosophy in China. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Frontiers of Philosophy in China.

Countries where authors publish in Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Frontiers of Philosophy in China. 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 papers published in Frontiers of Philosophy in China with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Frontiers of Philosophy in China more than expected).

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 journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025