Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
Impact factor
1
SJR
0.518
CiteScore
1.9
Categories
Philosophy
Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Areas
Arts and Humanities
Social Sciences
Years of issue
1999-2002, 2004-2025
journal names
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
ETHICAL THEORY MORAL
Top-3 citing journals

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
(534 citations)

Philosophical Studies
(232 citations)

Journal of Ethics
(135 citations)
Top-3 organizations

University of Oxford
(38 publications)

Lund University
(35 publications)

University of Copenhagen
(35 publications)

University of Oxford
(15 publications)

Lund University
(11 publications)

University of Copenhagen
(10 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 838
Q1

EXPRESS: Does Location Familiarity Increase Response to Mobile Ads?
Molitor D., Zubcsek P.P., Spann M., Reichhart P.
Targeting ads based on consumers’ real-time locations has evolved into a practice worth billions of dollars in the advertising industry. Yet, the implications of repeated mobile ad exposure are poorly understood, primarily due to the confounding effects of locational context. This research seeks to bridge this gap. Using two large datasets comprising more than three million observations from a major European mobile telecommunication company, the authors investigate how ad repetition and location revisits (i.e., returning to a previously visited location) jointly determine consumer response to mobile display advertising. The empirical strategy leverages coarsened exact matching combined with a logit model with fixed effects at the consumer-location level. The results show that the ad click-through rate is more than 26% higher at revisited locations than at locations visited for the first time. However, mobile ad repetition decreases click rates, and this effect is amplified at revisited locations. The results contribute to the theory and practice of mobile advertising.
Q1

EXPRESS: Drunk Texts: Insights on Consumer Drinking Behavior from Online Reviews of Alcoholic Beverage Products
Wang Y., Kuchmaner C.A., Xu X.
Little research has examined how consumers describe their alcohol consumption generally and through online channels. Informed by theories of social norms and impression management, we use a custom dataset of online reviews from Drizly.com to explore the topics discussed in online consumer reviews of alcoholic beverage products. We examine whether review topics differ by product category (i.e., beer, wine, or spirits) and based on product review volume, a normative signal. Consumers generally elaborate on the consumption setting, negative perceptions of the product and/or consumption experience, product-lifestyle fit, drink preparation, and finally any positive perceptions. Consumption setting is the primary topic discussed by beer and wine consumers, and this tendency is strengthened by the presence of more product reviews. Consumers’ openness to discussing negative aspects of consumption contradicts the logic of impression management theory. Additionally, the finding that positive aspects of consumption are the least elaborated topic generally and among beer and wine consumers contrasts previous social media research suggesting it would be a more important topic. We also find that greater product review volume strengthens beer and wine consumes’ likelihood to discuss both the positive and negative aspects of consumption, suggesting that drinking narratives are altered by perceived prevailing norms.
Q1

EXPRESS: Human Is Gold: Why Premium Customers Hate Chatbots and What to Do about It
Tatavarthy A.D., Martuza J., Thorbjørnsen H.
Individuals are often biased in their judgments about AI, especially when it comes to customer-support-oriented service interactions. With three preregistered experiments (and three supplementary studies), the current research examines how marketplace status creates systematic differences in customer biases against chatbot-delivered services, and what firms can do to mitigate the impact of those biases on their evaluations. In Study 1 (N = 1,019), we show that high-tier (vs. basic) customers react more negatively to chatbot-delivered services, even when the objective service delivered is the same. We also demonstrate that greater perceptions of uniqueness neglect and entitlement among high-tier (vs. basic-tier) customers are possible explanations for this tier-based bias against chatbots. In Study 2 (N = 1,196), we demonstrate the effectiveness of three “framing interventions” that significantly reduced high-tier customers’ bias against chatbots. Finally, Study 3 (N = 899) examines different ways of acquiring a high marketplace status— earned vs. unearned— as a boundary condition for our main effect, while experimentally demonstrating the mediational role of entitlement in addition to uniqueness neglect. Together, our research advances the understanding of human-robot interactions from a marketplace status lens and provides concrete managerial strategies for communicating about automated customer support services.
Q1

EXPRESS: Beyond Strong Bonds: a Typology and Motivational Insights into Online Brand Defenders
Ammann C., Giuffredi-Kähr A., Nyffenegger B., Krohmer H., Hoyer W.D.
In recent years, more and more consumers have defended brands online against criticism. Despite the high relevance of consumer brand defense (CBD) when recovering from adverse critique such as NWOM online, our understanding of the motives that drive CBD beyond emotionally intense consumer-brand connections remains limited. Building on a social media analysis of the phenomenon, qualitative in-depth interviews with consumers who defend brands, and a survey among brand defenders, we provide a better understanding of the motivational and relational drivers as well as the context factors of CBD. Specifically, our results show that brand defenders are driven by the motives of reciprocal altruism, equity restoration, and egoism as well as relational factors including brand satisfaction and attachment. Using a large-scale study with 570 actual brand defenders along with subsequent cluster analysis, we distinguish three distinct brand defender types: Brand promoters, justice promoters, and self-promoters. These defender types not only differ in their behavior but also in terms of contextual factors related to consumer characteristics, brand-related criticism, and company-related dynamics that influence their active engagement in CBD. Applying the distinct characteristics of the three defender types, we discuss how managers can more effectively motivate consumers to defend their brand online.
Q1

EXPRESS: Privacy Paradox: the Roles of Online Shopping Habits and Regulatory Foci in Bridging the Intention–Behaviour Gap
Moayery M., Urbonavičius S.
This paper approaches the intention–behaviour gap within the context of the privacy paradox from a novel perspective, focusing on the moderating roles of online shopping habits and regulatory foci in the relationship between disclosure intention and actual disclosure behaviour. The two distinct studies reveal that both factors significantly contribute to shaping this gap (Study 1) and provide further insights into the processes underlying the identified effects (Study 2). Specifically, our data suggests that online shopping habits and regulatory foci influence the extent to which individuals translate their disclosure intentions into actual information disclosure behaviour. By examining these moderating variables in depth, this paper contributes to the domain of consumer privacy by offering a novel interpretation of the reasons behind the privacy paradox. Based on this, practical implications and recommendations for future studies are provided.
Q1

EXPRESS: Internet Meme Marketing over the Fad Cycle
Ward M.R.
The sharing of internet memes on online social media is increasingly popular form of expressing opinions and complex sentiments in an easily understood image. Memes have been found to be an effective marketing tool if used appropriately. Marketers need to be aware when a meme’s use has become saturated, and its value is depreciating. As with many consumer uses of online social media, meme sharing is described as market for attention which can display dynamics as with cycle. This analysis models the dynamics of meme attention and estimates these dynamics from a panel of memes scraped from sub-Reddit meme forums and classified using a machine learning algorithm. Empirical analysis reveals patterns consistent with random shocks to meme entertainment value carrying over to the quality and quantity of subsequent expressions of the meme. Estimates indicate that a temporary elevation in attention dissipates within just one to two weeks. However, meme saturation then leads to less spread of the meme. To be effective meme marketers must remain attentive to where the meme they intend to use is within the fad cycle.
Q1

EXPRESS: The Effect of Game Ad Outcome on Subsequent Mobile Gaming Experience: the Mediating Role of Inferred Difficulty
Ashouri S., Beheshti M.K., Gopinath M.
This study investigates the effect of game advertisement outcomes on a player’s subsequent gaming experience. Research on vicarious experience shows that individuals infer game difficulty to be higher when watching game advertisements where players lose (vs. win) the game. Building on the effort–paradox paradigm, the first of this three-part study shows that such higher inferred difficulty enhances enjoyment and engagement during subsequent gaming experiences, especially for advertisements featuring easy game levels. Solely manipulating the difficulty level, Study 2 confirms the underlying mechanism of inferred difficulty for the observed effect of game advertisement outcomes. Study 3a finds that the main positive effect of losing (vs. winning) ads does not hold for advertisements featuring difficult game levels. Study 3b further explores this by focusing only on advertisements with difficult game levels, investigating how variations in players’ self-efficacy might influence their response to losing advertisements depicting difficult game levels. The findings across four studies suggest that, when promoting easy game levels, marketers can use advertisements with losing outcomes to extend gaming sessions, thereby increasing revenue from in-game advertisements. However, for difficult game levels, advertisements with losing outcomes are effective only for those with high self-efficacy.
Q1

EXPRESS: Signals for Success: the Intersection of Influencer Linguistic Personality, Content, and Follower Size
Myers S., Sen S., Syrdal H.A., Woodroof P.J., Stafford M.R.
Influencers are a crucial strategic component for many brands because of their significant marketing value. This research integrates parasocial and signaling theories to posit that relationship-building signals and promotion-focused signals will differentially impact engagement with sponsored posts. The study investigates the role of linguistic personality and content characteristics in driving engagement on social media platforms, with a focus on how follower size moderates these effects. Text mining techniques are used to construct a data set of 961 sponsored posts from 71 influencers. Findings reveal that linguistic agreement, characteristics of the photo (whether the influencer and/or product appear), and of the text (hashtags and emojis) significantly influence engagement. Multiple facets of this influence are moderated by follower size. Specifically, agreeable language positively impacted engagement, while picturing the product and higher hashtag use negatively impacted engagement. Further, follower size moderated the effect of the variables on engagement such that influencers with larger followings benefit more from conscientious language, fewer hashtags, and inclusion of the influencer in the post photo. Influencers with smaller audiences benefit more from extraverted, agreeable, open, and emotionally stable language strategies. These insights offer practical implications for influencers and marketers, suggesting tailored strategies to optimize content.
Q1

EXPRESS: Brand-to-Brand Engagement on Social Media: Typology and Implications
Dineva D., Lee Z., Mangió F.
Brand-to-brand (Br2Br) engagement on social media, where official brand accounts interact using various dialog strategies, is a growing trend in interactive marketing. This paper investigates the nature, nuances, and impact of Br2Br engagement on both participating brands and observing consumers, drawing from Language Expectancy Theory. To do this, we employ a mixed-methods approach, combining field data, qualitative and automated text analyses, and an experimental causal-chain mediation survey. In Study 1, we compare the effects of B2C versus Br2Br posts on consumer engagement, revealing that Br2Br posts generate higher engagement. Next, in Study 2, using typological theory building, we develop a framework of four overarching Br2Br engagement strategies—PR Hijacking, Praising, Teasing, and Spotlighting—differentiated by emotional tone and motivation. In Study 3, a causal-chain mediation analysis demonstrates that Teasing, as a violating strategy, leads to negative consumer responses, while Praising, PR Hijacking, and Spotlighting align with consumer expectations and result in favorable brand outcomes. These findings enhance the understanding of B2C and Br2Br communications on social media and provide actionable insights for digital marketers to optimize Br2Br engagement content.
Q1

EXPRESS: The Female Consumer Response Implications of Male Dominance in a Product’s Online Community
Rathee S., Hoskins J.D.
Does male dominance of a product’s online community deter female community voices? Does it affect product ratings and the nature of content produced too? How might female consumers’ brand attitudes and intentions be affected ultimately? Utilizing a large panel dataset of online customer reviews in the beer industry and three experimental studies, these questions are empirically investigated. This product category is highly male dominant, on average, but there is significant variation across products to enable degrees of male dominance to be empirically examined. Other theoretical accounts of simple majority, tie-strength, homophily, and cultural masculinity are empirically considered as well. The findings serve to complement prior work on online word of mouth (OWOM), demonstrating that male dominance of an online community can deter contributions from female reviewers and generate lower rating departure from community average sentiment by female reviewers. The type of content that is generated by female reviewers is also affected, with a reduction in the evocation of femininity themes and an increase in the evocation of masculinity themes. Downstream brand attitudes and trial intentions are also impacted. A resulting implication of high product community male dominance is the availability of less information for consumers when evaluating products.
Q1

EXPRESS: Exploring the Influence of Football Fan Tokens on Engagement: a Study on Fans’ Meaning, Team Brand Identification, and Co-creation Mechanisms
Vollero A., Sardanelli D., Manoli A.E.
Sport brands are pursuing new avenues that affect consumer–brand relationships through digital engagement platforms based on fan tokens, a specific type of cryptocurrency. These metaverse-enabling technologies offer novel stimuli to enhance fans’ brand experiences, but their impact on fans’ intentions and behaviors has yet to be determined. Drawing on social identity theory and customer engagement literature as a theoretical lens, this paper examines how the meanings attached to fan-token-related activities impact on team brand identification and the associated social influence mechanisms between fans, concurrently with brand co-creation awareness. Results show that meanings associated with fan-token-related activities have positive influence both on identification and engagement with fans’ favorite team brands, while intentions to continue using and recommending these digital assets depend primarily on the meanings that fans associate with these activities. This study has several theoretical and practical implications. It questions the ways through which metaverse technologies are affecting brand co-creation mechanisms and fan engagement. In managerial terms, it suggests that teams should primarily define an “open brand” structure to keep fans involved in these digital engagement platforms and reap the benefits of positive non-transactional behaviors from these engaged fans.
Q1

EXPRESS: How Star Power Drives Video Game Success
Marchand A., Weber N.R.
Well-known actors, or stars, clearly are relevant for movies. Today, their influence also extends to interactive video games, for which budgets have reached triple-digit millions of dollars. Yet no existing research addresses the economic impact of star power on video game success, across various game traits and reviews. Analyzing video games released on the popular distribution platform Steam between 2008 and 2022, the current study reveals that casting stars as game characters has positive effects on the valence of professional reviews, which in turn affect game success. Stars can therefore increase the quality of a game and also reduce uncertainty about it. This impact varies depending on game traits though. Based on these results, the authors develop an interactive dashboard that managers can use to simulate how they can strategically leverage star power to increase game success.
Q1

EXPRESS: Unraveling the Adverse Effects of Social Media on Teenagers: Current and Future Research Directions
Bhardwaj S., Chopra R., Donthu N., Choudhary P.
There are increasing concerns raised in the academic literature about the impact of social media on teenagers’ well-being. While becoming inextricable to our daily lives, online social media are blamed for increasing mental health problems in teenagers. This research addresses this problem by conducting a comprehensive and systematic review of the “Impact of Social Media on Teenagers” literature from 2005 to 2023. The search strategy resulted in 256 studies, of which 99 were identified as primary studies, and a synthesis of key themes pertinent to this study is presented. To cast light on this area's origins, trends, and future research directions, this study employs bibliometric content analysis to map the existing literature on the impact of social media on teenagers. The study addresses a critical gap in the literature by proposing relevant strands for future deliberation and actionable research. Notably, we observe that suicide, education, school children, quality of life, attitude to health, social media, anxiety, teenagers’ behavior, risk assessment, online social networking, deep learning, and emotions are major research topics in the area of social media's impact on teenagers.
Q1

EXPRESS: Coping with Social Media Envy in Luxury Consumption: the Role of Social Networking Site Actions
Miao M., Tang C., Guo L., Karande K.
Because social networking sites facilitate social comparison, consumer envy becomes inevitable among social media users. Drawing on social comparison and coping theories, this study examines how different types of envy lead to consumers’ distinct behaviors on social networking sites, some of which are self-directed and focus on self-enhancement, while others are either positive or negative interactions with the envied person. Employing both the contexts of luxury product and service sharing experiences on Instagram, the authors consistently show in four studies that whereas consumers who experience benign envy are more likely to interact with the envied person positively, such as liking the envied person’s posts, those who experience malicious envy are more likely to engage in negative interactions, such as unfollowing the envied person. Benign enviers are more likely to engage in self-enhancement actions on social networking sites, such as posting images/videos more frequently, compared with malicious enviers. When coping with the negative feeling of envy, positive interactions help benign enviers improve their sense of belonging. In contrast, malicious enviers tend to engage in maladaptive coping behaviors, such as engaging in negative interactions with the envied, which may diminish their sense of belonging and lead to negative self-perceptions.
Q1

EXPRESS: Humor in Online Brand-to-brand Dialogues: Unveiling the Difference between Top Dog and Underdog Brands
Mathieu B., Charlotte L., Ivan G.
Many brands periodically respond humorously to the content that other brands and celebrities post on social media. Drawing on three scenario-based experiments and a content analysis of humorous tweets based on their likes and retweets, the authors use the benign violation theory to understand whether using humor constitutes a benign (i.e., translating into amusement) or malign (i.e., translating into ulterior motives) violation. The success of a humorous brand-to-brand interaction (i.e., brand attitudes and purchase intentions) depends on its ability to generate amusement without causing customers to suspect ulterior motives. Study 1’s results reveal that customers respond more favorably when brands use affiliative humor rather than aggressive humor. Affiliative humor constitutes a benign violation that generates amusement, while aggressive humor constitutes a malign violation that leads customers to infer that brands have ulterior motives. Study 2 shows that aggressive humor partially compensates for its weaknesses over affiliative humor when brands target competing brands. Studies 3A and 3B reveal a reversed effect depending on brand positioning (top dogs versus underdogs). While underdog brands should always use affiliative humor, top dog brands could perform better by favoring aggressive humor (i.e., such brands could receive more likes and retweets without lowering customers’ purchase intentions).
Top-100
Citing journals
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
|
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
534 citations, 4.61%
|
|
Philosophical Studies
232 citations, 2%
|
|
Journal of Ethics
135 citations, 1.16%
|
|
Res Publica
131 citations, 1.13%
|
|
Synthese
127 citations, 1.1%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
123 citations, 1.06%
|
|
Philosophy Compass
108 citations, 0.93%
|
|
Utilitas
99 citations, 0.85%
|
|
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
98 citations, 0.85%
|
|
Philosophical Quarterly
97 citations, 0.84%
|
|
Topoi
95 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Philosophia (United States)
95 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Ethics and Information Technology
93 citations, 0.8%
|
|
Inquiry (United Kingdom)
89 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
88 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Philosophical Psychology
87 citations, 0.75%
|
|
Philosophy and Technology
82 citations, 0.71%
|
|
Science and Engineering Ethics
79 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Journal of Social Philosophy
70 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Canadian Journal of Philosophy
68 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Ethics
64 citations, 0.55%
|
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
63 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Philosophical Explorations
57 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Journal of Medical Ethics
55 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Politics, Philosophy and Economics
54 citations, 0.47%
|
|
AI and Ethics
54 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly
52 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Erkenntnis
52 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
52 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
49 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
48 citations, 0.41%
|
|
AI and Society
47 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Moral Philosophy and Politics
46 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Journal of Value Inquiry
46 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Ethics, Policy and Environment
42 citations, 0.36%
|
|
European Journal of Philosophy
42 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of the American Philosophical Association
41 citations, 0.35%
|
|
International Journal of Philosophical Studies
40 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
38 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Analysis
38 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Journal of Moral Education
38 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Nous
37 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of Moral Philosophy
36 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Theoria
35 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
35 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Metaphilosophy
34 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Ratio
33 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Applied Philosophy
32 citations, 0.28%
|
|
American Journal of Bioethics
32 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Handbook of African Philosophy
32 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Economics and Philosophy
31 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Sustainability
30 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Business Ethics Quarterly
30 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
29 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Public Health Ethics
28 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Neuroethics
28 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
26 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
26 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics
26 citations, 0.22%
|
|
European Journal of Political Theory
25 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Minds and Machines
25 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Southern Journal of Philosophy
24 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Philosophies
24 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Emotion in Language
24 citations, 0.21%
|
|
South African Journal of Philosophy
23 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Criminal Law and Philosophy
23 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Episteme
23 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Mind
21 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Religions
21 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Military Ethics
21 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Acta Analytica
21 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Hypatia
20 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Contemporary Political Theory
20 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Philosophy and Social Criticism
20 citations, 0.17%
|
|
BMC Medical Ethics
20 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Dialogue-Canadian Philosophical Review
20 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Les ateliers de l éthique
20 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Philosophy of Education
19 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Social Epistemology
19 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Political Studies
18 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Philosophy
18 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy
18 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Nursing Philosophy
17 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Politics
17 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Ethik in der Medizin
17 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Philosophical Papers
17 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Nursing Ethics
16 citations, 0.14%
|
|
The Biotechnology Debate
16 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Futures
15 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Kantian Review
15 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Global Ethics
15 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Ethics and Social Welfare
15 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Zeitschrift für Ethik und Moralphilosophie
15 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Res Philosophica
14 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Studies in Philosophy and Education
14 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Political Philosophy
14 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society
14 citations, 0.12%
|
|
HEC Forum
14 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Cognition
14 citations, 0.12%
|
|
The Monist
14 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
|
Citing publishers
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
|
|
Springer Nature
3165 citations, 27.31%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1205 citations, 10.4%
|
|
Wiley
1054 citations, 9.1%
|
|
Oxford University Press
977 citations, 8.43%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
877 citations, 7.57%
|
|
SAGE
451 citations, 3.89%
|
|
Elsevier
378 citations, 3.26%
|
|
MDPI
143 citations, 1.23%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
118 citations, 1.02%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
100 citations, 0.86%
|
|
Emerald
100 citations, 0.86%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
95 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
94 citations, 0.81%
|
|
BMJ
69 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
60 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Brill
51 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
40 citations, 0.35%
|
|
IGI Global
38 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
37 citations, 0.32%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
31 citations, 0.27%
|
|
University of Illinois Press
21 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
18 citations, 0.16%
|
|
SciELO
17 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Philosophy Documentation Center, Saint Louis University
15 citations, 0.13%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
13 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
University of Pittsburgh
12 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Duke University Press
11 citations, 0.09%
|
|
The Pennsylvania State University Press
11 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
9 citations, 0.08%
|
|
OpenEdition
9 citations, 0.08%
|
|
EDP Sciences
8 citations, 0.07%
|
|
CAIRN
7 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Intellect
7 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Edinburgh University Press
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
6 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Philosophy Centre of the University of Lisbon
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
AOSIS
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
World Scientific
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IOP Publishing
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Masaryk University Press
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Vilniaus Universiteto Leidykla
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Philosophy Documentation Center
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Royal Society
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
University of Warsaw
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Academy of Management
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Pluto Journals
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
S. Karger AG
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Uniwersytet Jagiellonski - Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bristol University Press
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
SAE International
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Hans Publishers
3 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IOS Press
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Liverpool University Press
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
MIT Press
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
PeerJ
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
White Horse Press
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Altai State University
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Instytut Filozofii UJ
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Vilnius University Press
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Inter-Research Science Center
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
JMIR Publications
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Virtus Interpress
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
F1000 Research
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
IntechOpen
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Berghahn Books
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Guilford Publications
2 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Marketing Association
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
University of Bialystok
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Begell House
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Higher Education Press
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Springer Publishing Company
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
|
Publishing organizations
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
|
University of Oxford
38 publications, 2.25%
|
|
Lund University
35 publications, 2.07%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
35 publications, 2.07%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
30 publications, 1.78%
|
|
Utrecht University
28 publications, 1.66%
|
|
University of Zurich
26 publications, 1.54%
|
|
Tilburg University
18 publications, 1.07%
|
|
Aarhus University
16 publications, 0.95%
|
|
University of Leeds
16 publications, 0.95%
|
|
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
15 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
15 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University of Münster
15 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
15 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University of Duisburg-Essen
14 publications, 0.83%
|
|
University of Glasgow
13 publications, 0.77%
|
|
University of Groningen
13 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Uppsala University
12 publications, 0.71%
|
|
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
12 publications, 0.71%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
12 publications, 0.71%
|
|
University of Toronto
12 publications, 0.71%
|
|
Stockholm University
11 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Delft University of Technology
11 publications, 0.65%
|
|
University of Birmingham
11 publications, 0.65%
|
|
University of Melbourne
11 publications, 0.65%
|
|
University of Arizona
11 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Humboldt University of Berlin
10 publications, 0.59%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
10 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Harvard University
10 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Trinity College Dublin
10 publications, 0.59%
|
|
University of Bristol
10 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Keele University
10 publications, 0.59%
|
|
University of Sheffield
10 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Eindhoven University of Technology
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Warwick
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Cambridge
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Goethe University Frankfurt
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Vienna
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Reading
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
William & Mary
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University College Dublin
9 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Geneva
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
King's College London
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Manchester
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Southampton
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Monash University
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Stanford University
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Hamburg University
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Göttingen
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
8 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Genoa
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Australian National University
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Milan
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University College London
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of the Witwatersrand
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Georgetown University
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of St Andrews
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Lancaster University
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Cardiff University
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Erasmus University Rotterdam
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Ottawa
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of York
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Essex
7 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Tübingen
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Bayreuth
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Linköping University
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Helsinki
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Oslo
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
London School of Economics and Political Science
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Nottingham
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Australian Catholic University
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Charles Sturt University
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Washington University in St. Louis
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Marquette University
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Wake Forest University
6 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of Haifa
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of Bern
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Durham University
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of Antwerp
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Roskilde University
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of Johannesburg
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
New York University
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Witten/Herdecke University
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of Michigan
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Leiden University
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of Victoria
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
5 publications, 0.3%
|
|
Bilkent University
4 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
4 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
4 publications, 0.24%
|
|
University of Twente
4 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Université Catholique de Louvain
4 publications, 0.24%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
|
|
University of Oxford
15 publications, 3.67%
|
|
Lund University
11 publications, 2.69%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
10 publications, 2.44%
|
|
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
10 publications, 2.44%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
8 publications, 1.96%
|
|
Aarhus University
7 publications, 1.71%
|
|
University of the Witwatersrand
6 publications, 1.47%
|
|
Trinity College Dublin
6 publications, 1.47%
|
|
University of Groningen
6 publications, 1.47%
|
|
University of Genoa
5 publications, 1.22%
|
|
University of Zurich
5 publications, 1.22%
|
|
University of Glasgow
5 publications, 1.22%
|
|
Goethe University Frankfurt
5 publications, 1.22%
|
|
Stockholm University
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
University of Milan
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
University of Warwick
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Tilburg University
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Utrecht University
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
University of Victoria
4 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Umeå University
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Eindhoven University of Technology
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Geneva
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Delft University of Technology
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Ashoka University
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
King's College London
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Antwerp
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Southampton
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Technical University of Dortmund
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Macquarie University
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Australian Catholic University
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Washington University in St. Louis
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Arizona
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
McMaster University
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Göttingen
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Leeds
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Graz
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Sheffield
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Pennsylvania
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Reading
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
William & Mary
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
University of Essex
3 publications, 0.73%
|
|
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Tübingen
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Uppsala University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Haifa
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Humboldt University of Berlin
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Linköping University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Australian National University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Basel
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Turin
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University College London
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Durham University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Oslo
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Roskilde University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Manchester
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
London School of Economics and Political Science
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
National University of Singapore
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Eastern Piedmont Amadeo Avogadro
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Monash University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Charles Sturt University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Johannesburg
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Georgetown University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Washington State University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Duke University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Harvard University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Washington
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Chicago
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Hunan University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Eötvös Loránd University (University of Budapest)
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Bristol
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Lancaster University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Tulane University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Duisburg-Essen
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Purdue University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Cardiff University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Fordham University
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Toronto
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Ottawa
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of York
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University College Dublin
2 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Marmara University
1 publication, 0.24%
|
|
Zhejiang University
1 publication, 0.24%
|
|
Peking University
1 publication, 0.24%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
1 publication, 0.24%
|
|
Sapir Academic College
1 publication, 0.24%
|
|
Ibn Haldun University
1 publication, 0.24%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
|
Publishing countries
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
|
|
USA
|
USA, 463, 27.4%
USA
463 publications, 27.4%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 305, 18.05%
United Kingdom
305 publications, 18.05%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 179, 10.59%
Germany
179 publications, 10.59%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 156, 9.23%
Netherlands
156 publications, 9.23%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 98, 5.8%
Sweden
98 publications, 5.8%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 71, 4.2%
Canada
71 publications, 4.2%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 62, 3.67%
Denmark
62 publications, 3.67%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 59, 3.49%
Australia
59 publications, 3.49%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 52, 3.08%
Switzerland
52 publications, 3.08%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 45, 2.66%
Italy
45 publications, 2.66%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 39, 2.31%
Ireland
39 publications, 2.31%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 24, 1.42%
South Africa
24 publications, 1.42%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 17, 1.01%
Belgium
17 publications, 1.01%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 16, 0.95%
Austria
16 publications, 0.95%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 16, 0.95%
Israel
16 publications, 0.95%
|
China
|
China, 15, 0.89%
China
15 publications, 0.89%
|
France
|
France, 14, 0.83%
France
14 publications, 0.83%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 13, 0.77%
Norway
13 publications, 0.77%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 13, 0.77%
Finland
13 publications, 0.77%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 10, 0.59%
Spain
10 publications, 0.59%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 8, 0.47%
New Zealand
8 publications, 0.47%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 7, 0.41%
Hungary
7 publications, 0.41%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 7, 0.41%
Singapore
7 publications, 0.41%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 6, 0.36%
Turkey
6 publications, 0.36%
|
India
|
India, 5, 0.3%
India
5 publications, 0.3%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 4, 0.24%
Portugal
4 publications, 0.24%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 4, 0.24%
Japan
4 publications, 0.24%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 3, 0.18%
Mexico
3 publications, 0.18%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 3, 0.18%
Poland
3 publications, 0.18%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 2, 0.12%
Russia
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 2, 0.12%
Estonia
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 2, 0.12%
Lebanon
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 2, 0.12%
Croatia
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 2, 0.12%
Czech Republic
2 publications, 0.12%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.06%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.06%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Iceland
|
Iceland, 1, 0.06%
Iceland
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 1, 0.06%
Luxembourg
1 publication, 0.06%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 1, 0.06%
UAE
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 1, 0.06%
Republic of Korea
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.06%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 1, 0.06%
Tanzania
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.06%
Chile
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Show all (13 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
|
|
USA
|
USA, 95, 23.23%
USA
95 publications, 23.23%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 76, 18.58%
United Kingdom
76 publications, 18.58%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 38, 9.29%
Germany
38 publications, 9.29%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 29, 7.09%
Sweden
29 publications, 7.09%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 25, 6.11%
Netherlands
25 publications, 6.11%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 21, 5.13%
Denmark
21 publications, 5.13%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 21, 5.13%
Italy
21 publications, 5.13%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 18, 4.4%
Australia
18 publications, 4.4%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 18, 4.4%
Canada
18 publications, 4.4%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 11, 2.69%
South Africa
11 publications, 2.69%
|
China
|
China, 10, 2.44%
China
10 publications, 2.44%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 10, 2.44%
Ireland
10 publications, 2.44%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 10, 2.44%
Switzerland
10 publications, 2.44%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 6, 1.47%
Belgium
6 publications, 1.47%
|
France
|
France, 5, 1.22%
France
5 publications, 1.22%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 5, 1.22%
Austria
5 publications, 1.22%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 5, 1.22%
Norway
5 publications, 1.22%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 4, 0.98%
Israel
4 publications, 0.98%
|
India
|
India, 3, 0.73%
India
3 publications, 0.73%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 3, 0.73%
Singapore
3 publications, 0.73%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 2, 0.49%
Russia
2 publications, 0.49%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 0.49%
Portugal
2 publications, 0.49%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 2, 0.49%
Hungary
2 publications, 0.49%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 2, 0.49%
Mexico
2 publications, 0.49%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 2, 0.49%
Finland
2 publications, 0.49%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 2, 0.49%
Croatia
2 publications, 0.49%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 2, 0.49%
Japan
2 publications, 0.49%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.24%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.24%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.24%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.24%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 1, 0.24%
Lebanon
1 publication, 0.24%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 1, 0.24%
Luxembourg
1 publication, 0.24%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.24%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.24%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.24%
Poland
1 publication, 0.24%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 1, 0.24%
Turkey
1 publication, 0.24%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.24%
Chile
1 publication, 0.24%
|
Show all (5 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
|