Selection of Publications
2020
  • Shifting Concepts: The Philosophy and Psychology of Conceptual Variability, (edited with Åsa Wikforss). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2020
  • 'How Can Philosophy of Language Help Us Navigate the Political News Cycle?', in Elly Vintiadis (ed.) Philosophy by Women: 22 Philosophers Reflect on Philosophy and Its Value, NY: Routledge. 2020
  • ‘Really expressive presuppositions and how to block them’, Grazer Philosophische Studien, 2020. (with M. García-Carpintero) [Google scholar score: 9] (SJR/Scopus - Q2) preprint
  • ‘Amelioration vs perversion’, in T. Marques and Å. Wikforss (eds.) Shifting Concepts: The Philosophy and Psychology of Conceptual Variability, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. [Google scholar score: 4] preprint 
2019
  • ‘The case against semantic relativism’, in M. Kusch (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy  of Relativism, Routledge. 2019. preprint
  • ‘Hybrid dispositionalism and the law’, in D. Plunkett, S. Shapiro, and K. Toh (eds.), Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. New York: Oxford University Press. 2019 [Google scholar score: 1] preprint
  • “Beasts in human form’: how dangerous speech harms’, Araucaria: Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades, y Relaciones Internacionales, 21(42). 2019. [Google scholar score: 1] (SJR/Scopus - Q2) link
2018
  • ‘Retractions’. Synthese. 195(8), 3335-3359. 2018 [Google scholar score: 19] (SJR/Scopus - Q1) preprint
  • ‘This is not an instance of (E)’. Synthese. 195(3), pp. 1035–1063. 2018 (SJR/Scopus - Q1) preprint
  • Disputatio Symposium on Sally Haslanger's Work, Disputatio 10 (50): 169-172. 2018. link
2017
  • ‘Pejorative discourse is not fictional’, Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 6(4): 250–260. 2017. [Google scholar score: 3] (SJR/Scopus - Q1) preprint
  • ‘What metalinguistic negotiations can’t do’, Phenomenology and Mind. 12: 40-48. 2017 [Google scholar score: 11] link
  • ‘The relevance of causal social construction’. Journal of Social Ontology. 3 (1). 2017 [Google scholar score: 6] link
  • ‘Can metalinguistic negotiations and ‘conceptual ethics’ rescue legal positivism?’ Francesca Poggi and Alessandro Capone (eds.), Pragmatics and Law: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives, pp. 223-241. Springer. ISBN-10: 3319445995. 2017 [Google scholar score: 2] preprint
2016
  • ‘We can’t have no satisfaction’. Philosophy South – Unisinos Philosophy Journal 17(3):308-314. 2016.
  • [Google scholar score: 2] (SJR/Scopus - Q3)
  • ‘Aesthetic predicates: a hybrid dispositional account’. Inquiry  59(6), pp. 723-751. 2016 [Google scholar score: 15] (SJR/Scopus - Q1) 2015
  •  ‘Disagreeing in context’. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (257). 2015 [Google scholar score: 26] (SJR/Scopus - Q1)
2014

  • ‘Disagreement about taste: commonality presuppositions and coordination’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 92 (4):701-723. (with Manuel García-Carpintero). 2014 [Google scholar score: 44] (SJR/Scopus - Q1)
  • ‘Relative correctness’. Philosophical Studies 167 (2): 361 - 373. 2014 [Google scholar score: 34] (SJR/Scopus - Q1)
  • ‘Doxastic disagreement’. Erkenntnis, 79 (1): 121 - 142. 2014 [Google scholar score: 47] (SJR/Scopus - Q1)
  • ‘Disagreements’. Erkenntnis, 79 (1): 1-10. (with Daniel Conhitz). 2014 [Google scholar score: 9] (SJR/Scopus - Q1)
Other publications

  • Article in the Catalan newspaper Ara on strategic ignorance and the Covid pandemic.
  • Article in the Catalan newspaper Ara  on free speech (January 2020)., and another
  • ​Interview for GPS, Global Portuguese Scientists network.
  • Article for The Conversation on the problems with research assessment and funding in Portugal, which has been reprinted here and here. (2014). The graphics below were prepared by Sylvia Tippman and show how many review panels and how many members there were in each review exercise. Whereas in 2007, decisions were taken by the 223 reviewers (covering more than 20 specialized panels), in 2014 the external reviewers opinion was not conclusive for the final verdicts. Instead, the 74 reviewers distributed in only 5 panels made all the final decisions concerning rating of the research units, and their future funding until 2020.