Pacific philosophical quarterly

1.1k papers and 10.0k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.1k papers published in Pacific philosophical quarterly in the last decades have received a total of 10.0k indexed citations. Papers published in Pacific philosophical quarterly usually cover Philosophy (764 papers), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (393 papers) and Cognitive Neuroscience (294 papers) specifically the topics of Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (461 papers), Philosophy and Theoretical Science (374 papers) and Philosophical Ethics and Theory (238 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Pacific philosophical quarterly are Joseph Levine, Pamela Hieronymi, Kent Bach, Eric Schwitzgebel, J. David Velleman, Sydney Shoemaker, Peter van Inwagen, Peter Godfrey‐Smith, Roy Sorensen and Kelly Trogdon.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Pacific philosophical quarterly

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Pacific philosophical quarterly. 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 Pacific philosophical quarterly.

Countries where authors publish in Pacific philosophical quarterly

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Pacific philosophical quarterly. 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 Pacific philosophical quarterly with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Pacific philosophical quarterly 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