Epistemic normativity as autotelic: why suspension and judgment aren’t like archery

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophical Studies, October 2025

Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

bluesky: 5 Bluesky users

You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.

Article details
Title	Epistemic normativity as autotelic: why suspension and judgment aren’t like archery
Published in	Philosophical Studies, October 2025
DOI	10.1007/s11098-025-02417-6
Authors	Matthew Chrisman, Graham Hubbs

View on publisher site Alert me about new mentions

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2025.

All research outputs

#9,363,523

of 29,516,076 outputs

Outputs from Philosophical Studies

#288

of 1,584 outputs

Outputs of similar age

#41,790

of 173,765 outputs

Outputs of similar age from Philosophical Studies

of 25 outputs

Altmetric has tracked 29,516,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.

So far Altmetric has tracked 1,584 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.

Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,765 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.

We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.