The Review of Symbolic Logic

536 papers and 4.1k indexed citations i.

About

The 536 papers published in The Review of Symbolic Logic in the last decades have received a total of 4.1k indexed citations. Papers published in The Review of Symbolic Logic usually cover Artificial Intelligence (369 papers), Computational Theory and Mathematics (303 papers) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (193 papers) specifically the topics of Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge (349 papers), Advanced Algebra and Logic (216 papers) and Philosophy and Theoretical Science (193 papers). The most active scholars publishing in The Review of Symbolic Logic are Kit Fine, Sergei Artëmov, David Ripley, Elia Zardini, Benjamin Schnieder, Fabrice Correia, Hartry Field, Jc Beall, Øystein Linnebo and Hannes Leitgeb.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in The Review of Symbolic Logic

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in The Review of Symbolic Logic. 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 The Review of Symbolic Logic.

Countries where authors publish in The Review of Symbolic Logic

Since Specialization
Citations

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