Journal of NeuroPhilosophy

The recent article by Eugenio Petrovich and Marco Viola offers the first large-scale scientometric mapping of the relationship between philosophy and neuroscience. Using citation analysis, the authors systematically examine the structure, intensity, and direction of interaction between these two disciplines over a period exceeding four decades. This work does not merely provide a quantitative description; it empirically challenges an intellectual narrative that has animated neurophilosophical discourse for decades: the idea that neuroscience has, or should have, fundamentally altered the practice and self-understanding of philosophy. Petrovich and Viola's meticulous citation analysis reveals a relationship that is robust but complex, uneven, and structurally asymmetric. Interpreted in the context of the broader aims of the Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNphi), their findings invite us not only to reassess past intellectual assumptions but also to reflect on the shape of the interdisciplinary frontier ahead. This essay aims to explore the methodological innovations of Petrovich and Viola's study, the philosophical and scientific implications of their findings, and how these findings intersect with the core mission of JNphi in an expanded, threefold framework.

JNphi's core mission is to foster rigorous interdisciplinary inquiry into age-old philosophical questions using the lens of neuroscience—to break free from disciplinary insularity while preserving conceptual depth. The journal strives to support conversations that range from the mind–body problem and consciousness to moral agency, emerging technologies, neuroethics, and the philosophical foundations of neuroscience itself. Its openness to diverse genres—reviews, perspectives, original research, and commentaries—reflects a commitment to pluralistic yet rigorous engagement with both empirical findings and conceptual analysis. The journal questions not only how neuroscientific data can transform philosophical concepts but also how philosophical analysis can illuminate the assumptions underlying neuroscientific research.

The Petrovich and Viola article aligns naturally with this mission. By providing empirical diagnostics of the philosophy–neuroscience interface, it places neurophilosophical inquiry on a more transparent and accountable empirical footing. This is precisely the kind of reflective "meta-perspective" that JNphi aims to cultivate: understanding not just what questions neuroscience and philosophy ask of each other, but how, where, and to what extent those exchanges are taking place. The study thus functions as an empirical foundation upon which the journal's editorial strategy and the broader field's self-understanding can be built.

The methodological rigor of the study deserves particular emphasis here. Petrovich and Viola operationalized philosophy and neuroscience using Web of Science (WoS) data, creating both "large" and "narrow" sets of journals. The "Philosophy large" set comprises 1,517 journals or book collections across four philosophy-relevant WoS categories ('Philosophy,' 'History & Philosophy of Science,' 'Ethics,' 'Medical Ethics'), while the "Neuroscience large" set includes 612 journals or book collections in two neuroscience categories ('Neurosciences,' 'Neuroimaging').