Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate
Impact in
- Education 397
Classified as
- Journal
- Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Québec government)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w6996418469 →Countries where authors are citing Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate
This map shows the geographic impact of Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate. 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 Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate
This network shows the impact of Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate.
About Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate
This paper, published in 2016, received 605 indexed citations . Written by Drew Moser, Todd C. Ream and John M. Braxton covering the research area of Education, Information Systems and Management and Political Science and International Relations. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Education (397 citations), Political Science and International Relations (75 citations), Information Systems and Management (50 citations), General Health Professions (40 citations) and Information Systems (38 citations). Published in Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Québec government).
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w6996418469.