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.
Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience
2018229 citationsAnneke Smits, Joke Voogt et al.Computers & Educationprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Anneke Smits'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 Anneke Smits with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Anneke Smits more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Anneke Smits. 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 Anneke Smits. The network helps show where Anneke Smits may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Anneke Smits
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Anneke Smits.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Anneke Smits 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 Anneke Smits. Anneke Smits is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Smits, Anneke, et al.. (2021). Quality of preservice teachers’ (technological) pedagogical reasoning and action during internships. Research Padua Archive (University of Padua). 293–299.1 indexed citations
Voogt, Joke, Michael Phillips, Anneke Smits, et al.. (2019). Practicing and prospective teachers’ pedagogical reasoning about using technology in their educational practice: Part 1. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 13–16.1 indexed citations
Smits, Anneke, et al.. (2018). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers & Education. 130. 81–93.229 indexed citations breakdown →
14.
Smits, Anneke, Joke Voogt, Gerald Knezek, et al.. (2018). Factors affecting pre- and in-service use of technology in teaching: Implications for research and practice – Part 1. 604–607.1 indexed citations
15.
Voogt, Joke, Gerald Knezek, Rhonda Christensen, et al.. (2018). Part 1: Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age – Implications for Teacher Education. 1075–1079.3 indexed citations
16.
Shonfeld, Miri, et al.. (2017). Digital agency to empower equity in education : Summary Report. Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University).2 indexed citations
17.
Voogt, Joke, Teemu Valtonen, Erkko Sointu, et al.. (2017). (Future) Teachers’ Use of Technology and Development of TPACK: Insights from a Global Perspective. 2499–2502.3 indexed citations
Voogt, Joke, et al.. (2014). How teacher education institutions cope with challenges of teaching and learning in the digital age. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam). 2014(1). 2821–2823.1 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.