Philosophia Mathematica

562 papers and 3.7k indexed citations

About

The 562 papers published in Philosophia Mathematica in the last decades have received a total of 3.7k indexed citations. Papers published in Philosophia Mathematica usually cover Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (253 papers), History and Philosophy of Science (217 papers) and Theoretical Computer Science (167 papers) specifically the topics of Philosophy and Theoretical Science (248 papers), Philosophy and History of Science (169 papers) and History and Theory of Mathematics (167 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Philosophia Mathematica are Yehuda Rav, Geoffrey Hellman, Stewart Shapiro, Mark Colyvan, Bob Hale, Steve Awodey, John P. Burgess, Jody Azzouni, Jukka Keränen and Alan Turing.

In The Last Decade

Philosophia Mathematica

402 papers receiving 2.9k citations

Fields of papers published in Philosophia Mathematica

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Philosophia Mathematica. 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 Philosophia Mathematica.

Countries where authors publish in Philosophia Mathematica

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Philosophia Mathematica. 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 Philosophia Mathematica with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Philosophia Mathematica 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
2026