Last summer, Jordan Jackson and I scraped the bibliographies of all the main-page entries of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the leading source of review articles in mainstream Anglophone philosophy.
Very cool work, Eric. On a quick glance, most of these seem to be references to books, which is somewhat odd given that it seems to me that analytic philosophy is often done through papers rather than books. Wonder what a second list would look like only looking at papers.
Right -- mostly books. Interesting to think about why. They can be perceived as richer and more definitive than articles. And often successful articles are later converted into books, and it makes sense to cite the later, fuller treatment. Also, generally, there are more ideas per book, so more things that are potentially citable to the same source.
Very cool work, Eric. On a quick glance, most of these seem to be references to books, which is somewhat odd given that it seems to me that analytic philosophy is often done through papers rather than books. Wonder what a second list would look like only looking at papers.
Right -- mostly books. Interesting to think about why. They can be perceived as richer and more definitive than articles. And often successful articles are later converted into books, and it makes sense to cite the later, fuller treatment. Also, generally, there are more ideas per book, so more things that are potentially citable to the same source.