Nova Hinman

21 papers receiving 653 citations

Peers

Nova Hinman
Comparison fields: 5 of 63
  • Pharmacy 248
  • Clinical Psychology 411
  • Applied Psychology 63
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health 184
  • Social Psychology 142
Replace Jacob M. Burmeister with:
Jacob M. Burmeister United States
Stephanie R. Damiano Australia
Anna C. Ciao United States
Elizabeth Blackmore Canada
Elise Button United Kingdom
Josée L. Jarry Canada
Ruth Striegel Weissman United States
Gunn Pettersen Norway
Natasha L. Burke United States
Linda S. Estes United States
Nova Hinman relative to Jacob M. Burmeister United States Jacob M. Burmeister's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×1.8×
Jacob M. Burmeister · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Nova Hinman

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Nova Hinman'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 Nova Hinman with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Nova Hinman more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Nova Hinman

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Nova Hinman. 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 Nova Hinman. The network helps show where Nova Hinman may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 20 scholars most cited alongside Nova Hinman, 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 Nova Hinman Line = papers co-authored together Nova Hinman links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 21 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 2012189
2 201371
3 201064
4 201255
5 201254
6 201438
7 201433
8 202033
9 201322
10 201020
11
Responding to Our Own Transgressions: An Experimental Writing Study of Repentance, Offense Rumination, Self-justification, and Distraction
201117
12 201117
13 201312
14 201511
15 201611
16 201210
17 20139
18 20149
19 20154
20 20153

About Nova Hinman

Nova Hinman is a scholar working on Pharmacy, Clinical Psychology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Social Psychology and Gender Studies, having authored 21 papers that have together received 683 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Obesity and Health Practices (14 papers), Eating Disorders and Behaviors (9 papers), Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet (6 papers), Forgiveness and Related Behaviors (2 papers), Behavioral Health and Interventions (1 paper), Attachment and Relationship Dynamics (1 paper), Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology (1 paper) and Media, Gender, and Advertising (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Pharmacy (248 citations), Clinical Psychology (411 citations), Applied Psychology (63 citations), Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (184 citations) and Social Psychology (142 citations). Nova Hinman has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Robert A. Carels, Afton M. Koball, Jacob M. Burmeister, Debra A. Hoffmann, Marissa Wagner Oehlhof, Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, P. A. DeYoung, Amy Storfer‐Isser, Amanda Gumble and Lynn A. Darby. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Health Psychology, Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, Obesity Facts, The Journal of Positive Psychology and Eating Behaviors.

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