Kim Mitchell

34 papers receiving 382 citations

Peers

Kim Mitchell
Comparison fields: 5 of 88
  • Research and Theory 45
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects 11
  • Leadership and Management 9
  • History and Philosophy of Science 25
  • Literature and Literary Theory 58
Replace Elizabeth A. Gazza with:
Elizabeth A. Gazza United States
Jennifer Chicca United States
Pip Hardy United Kingdom
Fátima Pereira Portugal
Lynette Stockhausen Australia
Max Scheja Sweden
André Vågan Norway
Sandra Kemp Singapore
Keith Postlethwaite United Kingdom
Shirley O’Neill Australia
Kim Mitchell relative to Elizabeth A. Gazza United States Elizabeth A. Gazza's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×9.5×
Elizabeth A. Gazza · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Kim Mitchell

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Kim Mitchell's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Kim Mitchell with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Kim Mitchell more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Kim Mitchell

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Kim Mitchell. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Kim Mitchell. The network helps show where Kim Mitchell may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Kim Mitchell, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Kim Mitchell Line = papers co-authored together Kim Mitchell links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 38 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201850
2 202133
3 201828
4 202027
5 199821
6 202220
7 201719
8 198916
9 201914
10 201714
11 201814
12 201813
13 201713
14 201911
15 202111
16 202310
17 202110
18 20229
19 20178
20 20217

About Kim Mitchell

Kim Mitchell is a scholar working on Education, Literature and Literary Theory, Research and Theory, General Health Professions and Sociology and Political Science, having authored 38 papers that have together received 401 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Writing and Handwriting Education (8 papers), Discourse Analysis in Language Studies (8 papers), Nursing education and management (8 papers), Education and Critical Thinking Development (6 papers), Reflective Practices in Education (4 papers), Academic Writing and Publishing (3 papers), Digital Storytelling and Education (3 papers) and Medical Education and Admissions (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Research and Theory (45 citations), Issues, ethics and legal aspects (11 citations), Leadership and Management (9 citations), History and Philosophy of Science (25 citations) and Literature and Literary Theory (58 citations). Kim Mitchell has collaborated with scholars based in Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. Frequent co-authors include Diana E. McMillan, Alexander M. Clark, Kendra L. Rieger, Michelle Lobchuk, Lisa Demczuk, Rasheda Rabbani, Nathan Nickel, Christina West, Rishma Chooniedass and Amanda Kenny. Their work appears in journals such as Nurse Education Today, Nursing Inquiry, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Clinical Simulation in Nursing and International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact