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.
This map shows the geographic impact of Autar Kaw'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 Autar Kaw with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Autar Kaw more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Autar Kaw. 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 Autar Kaw. The network helps show where Autar Kaw may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Autar Kaw
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Autar Kaw.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Autar Kaw 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 Autar Kaw. Autar Kaw is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Clark, Renee, et al.. (2017). Blended vs. flipped teaching: One course - Three engineering schools. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida).2 indexed citations
10.
Clark, Renee, Autar Kaw, & Mary Besterfield‐Sacre. (2016). Comparing the Effectiveness of Blended, Semi-Flipped, and Flipped Formats in an Engineering Numerical Methods Course. AEE Journal. 5(3). 1.53 indexed citations
11.
Yalçin, Ali & Autar Kaw. (2011). Do Homework Grading Policies Affect Student Learning. International journal of engineering education. 27(6). 1333–1342.3 indexed citations
12.
Kaw, Autar, et al.. (2011). Development and Assessment of Digital Audiovisual Youtube Lectures for an Engineering Course in Numerical Methods. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida). 21(2). 89.8 indexed citations
Kaw, Autar, et al.. (2009). Introducing and Assessing Laboratory Experience in a Numerical Methods Course for Engineers. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida). 19(3). 57.3 indexed citations
15.
Kaw, Autar & Melinda R. Hess. (2007). Comparing Effectiveness of Instructional Delivery Modalities in an Engineering Course. International journal of engineering education. 23(3). 508–516.12 indexed citations
16.
Kaw, Autar, Glen Besterfield, & James Eison. (2005). Assessment of a Web-Enhanced Course in Numerical Methods*. International journal of engineering education. 21. 712.10 indexed citations
17.
Kaw, Autar, et al.. (2004). On Comparing Computational Systems - Maple, Mathcad, Mathematica & Matlab. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida). 14(1). 12.2 indexed citations
18.
Kaw, Autar. (2002). Introduction to Matrix Algebra: Second edition. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida). 59(5). 559–61.
19.
Kaw, Autar, et al.. (1997). A Software Tool for Mechanics of Composite Materials. International journal of engineering education. 13(6). 433–441.4 indexed citations
20.
Kaw, Autar. (1992). An Instructional Interactive Aid for Mechanics of Composites. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education. 20(3). 213.1 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.