Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
Impact factor
0.5
SJR
0.398
CiteScore
2.1
Categories
Philosophy
Areas
Arts and Humanities
Years of issue
1972-2024
journal names
Philosophical Papers
PHILOS PAP
Top-3 citing journals
Top-3 organizations

Rhodes University
(14 publications)

University of Cape Town
(14 publications)

University of the Witwatersrand
(13 publications)

University of the Witwatersrand
(4 publications)

University of Ghana
(2 publications)

University of Johannesburg
(2 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
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
|
|
Philosophical Studies
145 citations, 3.37%
|
|
Synthese
129 citations, 3%
|
|
Philosophy Compass
69 citations, 1.6%
|
|
Philosophical Papers
68 citations, 1.58%
|
|
Philosophia (United States)
55 citations, 1.28%
|
|
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
50 citations, 1.16%
|
|
Inquiry (United Kingdom)
50 citations, 1.16%
|
|
Erkenntnis
48 citations, 1.11%
|
|
Philosophical Psychology
41 citations, 0.95%
|
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
38 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
38 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Topoi
36 citations, 0.84%
|
|
Philosophical Quarterly
35 citations, 0.81%
|
|
Nous
30 citations, 0.7%
|
|
South African Journal of Philosophy
27 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Social Epistemology
27 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Theoria
25 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Acta Analytica
24 citations, 0.56%
|
|
European Journal of Philosophy
23 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Metaphilosophy
23 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly
22 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Southern Journal of Philosophy
22 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Journal of Ethics
21 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Analysis
21 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Ratio
19 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Religious Studies
19 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Dialogue-Canadian Philosophical Review
19 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Canadian Journal of Philosophy
19 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Metaphysica
19 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Journal of the American Philosophical Association
18 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Hypatia
16 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Episteme
16 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Philosophical Explorations
16 citations, 0.37%
|
|
The Monist
15 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Nous-Supplement: Philosophical Issues
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Journal of Medical Ethics
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Journal of Social Philosophy
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Analytic Philosophy
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Mind
13 citations, 0.3%
|
|
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
13 citations, 0.3%
|
|
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
12 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Philosophy
12 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
12 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Philosophy of the Social Sciences
12 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Philosophical Logic
12 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Dialectica
12 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Sophia
12 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Ethics
11 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Studies in Philosophy and Education
11 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Journal of Philosophical Studies
11 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Mind and Language
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Nous-Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Utilitas
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
The Philosophical Forum
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Ethics and Information Technology
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Value Inquiry
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Handbook of African Philosophy
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Midwest Studies in Philosophy
9 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Axiomathes
9 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Philosophical Investigations
9 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Philosophy of Education
9 citations, 0.21%
|
|
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
9 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
8 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Philosophy and Technology
8 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Global Ethics
8 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Philosophies
8 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
British Journal for the History of Philosophy
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
European Journal of Political Theory
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Kantian Review
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Journal of Applied Philosophy
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
American Philosophical Quarterly
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Social Philosophy and Policy
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Manuscrito
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Social Dynamics
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Res Philosophica
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Management Inquiry
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Criminal Justice Ethics
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Religions
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Minds and Machines
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Human Affairs
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Asian Journal of Philosophy
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Nursing Philosophy
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Signs
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Asian Philosophy
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Political Philosophy
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Politikon
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
|
Citing publishers
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
|
|
Springer Nature
876 citations, 20.34%
|
|
Wiley
501 citations, 11.63%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
463 citations, 10.75%
|
|
Oxford University Press
314 citations, 7.29%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
252 citations, 5.85%
|
|
SAGE
110 citations, 2.55%
|
|
Elsevier
73 citations, 1.69%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
45 citations, 1.04%
|
|
MDPI
24 citations, 0.56%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
22 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
21 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Duke University Press
20 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Brill
18 citations, 0.42%
|
|
IGI Global
17 citations, 0.39%
|
|
BMJ
16 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
14 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Emerald
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
University of Illinois Press
10 citations, 0.23%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
7 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Philosophy Documentation Center, Saint Louis University
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
University of Pittsburgh
6 citations, 0.14%
|
|
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
The Philosophy Centre of the University of Lisbon
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
The Pennsylvania State University Press
5 citations, 0.12%
|
|
SciELO
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
AOSIS
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
3 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
3 citations, 0.07%
|
|
OpenEdition
3 citations, 0.07%
|
|
CAIRN
3 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Edinburgh University Press
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
AIP Publishing
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Imprint Academic
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Indiana University Press
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Masaryk University Press
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Vilniaus Universiteto Leidykla
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
European Journal for Philosophy of Religion
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Unisa Press
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
University of Montreal
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Astronomical Society
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Berghahn Books
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hans Publishers
2 citations, 0.05%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Philosophy Documentation Center
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Associazone culturale Pragma
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Mathematical Association of America
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Editions Antipodes
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Tyumen State University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Instituto Universitario de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Sun Media Corporation
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
University of the Free State
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Revues.org
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Japan Society of Civil Engineers
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Europe's Journal of Psychology
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Brazilian Administration Review
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
S. Karger AG
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Academy of Science of South Africa
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universitas Airlangga
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Equinox Publishing
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
AACN Publishing
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Pamukkale University Journal of Divinity Faculty
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (49 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
|
Publishing organizations
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
|
|
University of Cape Town
14 publications, 1.63%
|
|
Rhodes University
14 publications, 1.63%
|
|
University of the Witwatersrand
13 publications, 1.52%
|
|
University of Leeds
7 publications, 0.82%
|
|
University of Johannesburg
6 publications, 0.7%
|
|
University of St Andrews
6 publications, 0.7%
|
|
King's College London
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of Memphis
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Stellenbosch University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Princeton University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Syracuse University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of California, Riverside
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Notre Dame
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Barcelona
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Lund University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Stockholm University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Geneva
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Australian National University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Monash University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
San Diego State University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Ghana
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Bristol
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Brown University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Calgary
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Alberta
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Ege University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Haifa
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Oxford
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Cambridge
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Åbo Akademi University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Manchester
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Nottingham
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Yale University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Adelaide
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Tasmania
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Flinders University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Columbia University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of South Africa
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
North Carolina State University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Dar es Salaam
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Georgia State University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Jagiellonian University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
East Carolina University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Warsaw
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Wilfrid Laurier University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Reading
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Colorado Boulder
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Weber State University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Utah
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Osh State University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Bilkent University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Boğaziçi University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Genoa
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Ghent University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Bordeaux Montaigne University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Tel Hai Academic College
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Helsinki
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Zurich
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Xiamen University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Milan
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Autonomous University of Barcelona
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Turin
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University College London
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Liverpool
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Antwerp
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Sorbonne University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
National University of Singapore
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Birmingham
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
National Chung Cheng University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Sydney
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Pavia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
European Institute of Oncology
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Glasgow
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Otago
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Massey University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Canterbury
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Waikato
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Melbourne
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Western Australia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Deakin University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Macquarie University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Edith Cowan University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Charles Sturt University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Bond University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Georgetown University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
4
|
|
University of the Witwatersrand
4 publications, 6.15%
|
|
University of Johannesburg
2 publications, 3.08%
|
|
University of Ghana
2 publications, 3.08%
|
|
University of Warsaw
2 publications, 3.08%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Genoa
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Bordeaux Montaigne University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Haifa
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Xiamen University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Sorbonne University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
National Chung Cheng University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Stellenbosch University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Fort Hare
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Eötvös Loránd University (University of Budapest)
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Georgia State University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of the West Indies at Cave Hill, Barbados
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Münster
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Jagiellonian University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Leeds
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Vienna
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Barcelona
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Calgary
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
University of Saskatchewan
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Miami University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Weber State University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
Portland State University
1 publication, 1.54%
|
|
1
2
3
4
|
Publishing countries
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|
|
USA
|
USA, 125, 14.59%
USA
125 publications, 14.59%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 47, 5.48%
United Kingdom
47 publications, 5.48%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 44, 5.13%
South Africa
44 publications, 5.13%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 18, 2.1%
Australia
18 publications, 2.1%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 17, 1.98%
Canada
17 publications, 1.98%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 15, 1.75%
Greece
15 publications, 1.75%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 11, 1.28%
Italy
11 publications, 1.28%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 8, 0.93%
Brazil
8 publications, 0.93%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 8, 0.93%
Sweden
8 publications, 0.93%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 6, 0.7%
Netherlands
6 publications, 0.7%
|
China
|
China, 5, 0.58%
China
5 publications, 0.58%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 5, 0.58%
Israel
5 publications, 0.58%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 4, 0.47%
Germany
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 4, 0.47%
Denmark
4 publications, 0.47%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 4, 0.47%
New Zealand
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 4, 0.47%
Poland
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 4, 0.47%
Turkey
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 4, 0.47%
Switzerland
4 publications, 0.47%
|
France
|
France, 3, 0.35%
France
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 3, 0.35%
Belgium
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 3, 0.35%
Ghana
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 3, 0.35%
Finland
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 2, 0.23%
Austria
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 2, 0.23%
Spain
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 2, 0.23%
Mexico
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 2, 0.23%
Republic of Korea
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 2, 0.23%
Singapore
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 2, 0.23%
Tanzania
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Montenegro
|
Montenegro, 2, 0.23%
Montenegro
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 1, 0.12%
Argentina
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Barbados
|
Barbados, 1, 0.12%
Barbados
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.12%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 1, 0.12%
Kyrgyzstan
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.12%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 0.12%
Nigeria
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.12%
Norway
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Palestine
|
Palestine, 1, 0.12%
Palestine
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.12%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 1, 0.12%
Japan
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Show all (9 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
2
4
6
8
10
|
|
USA
|
USA, 10, 15.38%
USA
10 publications, 15.38%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 9, 13.85%
South Africa
9 publications, 13.85%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 4, 6.15%
Canada
4 publications, 6.15%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 3, 4.62%
Poland
3 publications, 4.62%
|
France
|
France, 2, 3.08%
France
2 publications, 3.08%
|
China
|
China, 2, 3.08%
China
2 publications, 3.08%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 2, 3.08%
Austria
2 publications, 3.08%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 2, 3.08%
Brazil
2 publications, 3.08%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 2, 3.08%
United Kingdom
2 publications, 3.08%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 2, 3.08%
Ghana
2 publications, 3.08%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 1, 1.54%
Germany
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Barbados
|
Barbados, 1, 1.54%
Barbados
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 1.54%
Belgium
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 1.54%
Hungary
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 1.54%
Israel
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 1, 1.54%
Spain
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 1, 1.54%
Italy
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 1.54%
Colombia
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1, 1.54%
Mexico
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 1.54%
Nigeria
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 1, 1.54%
Netherlands
1 publication, 1.54%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 1, 1.54%
Singapore
1 publication, 1.54%
|
2
4
6
8
10
|