Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Appropriating Scientific Discourse: Findings From Language Minority Classrooms
1992377 citationsAnn S. Rosebery, Beth Warren et al.Journal of the Learning Sciencesprofile →
Desettling Expectations in Science Education
2012338 citationsBeth Warren, Ann S. Rosebery et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Ann S. Rosebery
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Ann S. Rosebery'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 Ann S. Rosebery with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Ann S. Rosebery more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Ann S. Rosebery. 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 Ann S. Rosebery. The network helps show where Ann S. Rosebery may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Ann S. Rosebery
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Ann S. Rosebery.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Ann S. Rosebery based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Ann S. Rosebery. Ann S. Rosebery is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Kachchaf, Rachel, et al.. (2014). Do Linguistic Features of Science Test Items Prevent English Language Learners from Demonstrating Their Knowledge. Grantee Submission.1 indexed citations
5.
Kachchaf, Rachel, et al.. (2014). The Impact of Discourse Features of Science Test Items on ELL Performance.. Grantee Submission.1 indexed citations
Warren, Beth & Ann S. Rosebery. (2011). Navigating Interculturality: African American Male Students and the Science Classroom. 2(1). 98–115.47 indexed citations
Rosebery, Ann S. & Beth Warren. (2001). Understanding Diversity in Science and Mathematics.. Hand. 24(2). 6.1 indexed citations
10.
McIntyre, Ellen, Ann S. Rosebery, & Norma González. (2001). Classroom Diversity: Connecting Curriculum to Students' Lives..118 indexed citations
11.
Rosebery, Ann S. & Beth Warren. (2000). Professional Development and Children's Understanding of Force and Motion: Assessment Results..2 indexed citations
Warren, Beth & Ann S. Rosebery. (1993). Equity in the Future Tense: Redefining Relationships among Teachers, Students, and Science in Linguistic Minority Classrooms. Working Paper 1-93..2 indexed citations
14.
Rosebery, Ann S., et al.. (1992). Appropriating Scientific Discourse: Findings From Language Minority Classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2(1). 61–94.377 indexed citations breakdown →
15.
Warren, Beth & Ann S. Rosebery. (1991). Cheche Konnen: Collaborative Scientific Inquiry in Language Minority Classrooms. Handbook for Teachers and Planners from the Innovative Approaches Research Project. Second Edition..2 indexed citations
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.