CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Topics in Cognitive Science

academic journal

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 14, 2026
Entity authorityQ65078231 ↗
Source-derived summary

Topics in Cognitive Science (also stylized as topiCS) is a quarterly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering cognitive science. It was established in 2009, with its first issue published in January of that year. It is published by Wiley-Blackwell in a partnership with the Cognitive Science Society. The editor-in-chief is Andrea Bender (University of Bergen). According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2017 impact factor of 2.284, ranking it 35th out of 85 journals in the category "Psychology, Experimental".

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Topics in Cognitive Science” is academic journal. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Topics, Cognitive and Science, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2009, 2017—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Topics, Cognitive and Science is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “academic journal” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 14, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q65078231. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2009 and 2017.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Topics in Cognitive Science”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Topics in Cognitive Science primary sources, Topics in Cognitive Science archive and Topics research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Topics in Cognitive Science”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Topics in Cognitive Science” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.