Caroline de Cock
- General Health Professions top 5%
- Applied Psychology top 2%
- Artificial Intelligence top 10%
- Health Informatics top 1%
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
- Co-authors
- Madison Milne‐IvesEdward MeinertMichelle Helena van VelthovenChing LamMelissa Harper ShehadehNick de PenningtonErnest LimEduardo Normando
- Topics
- Mobile Health and mHealth Applications (6 papers)Bone health and osteoporosis research (4 papers)Vitamin D Research Studies (3 papers)
- Journals
- SHILAP Revista de lepidopterologíaJournal of Medical Internet ResearchPublic Health Nutrition
- Partner nations
- United KingdomBelgiumIreland
In The Last Decade
Caroline de Cock
13 papers receiving 668 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 106
- General Health Professions 286
- Applied Psychology 214
- Artificial Intelligence 135
- Health Informatics 126
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health 90
Countries citing papers authored by Caroline de Cock
This map shows the geographic impact of Caroline de Cock'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 Caroline de Cock with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Caroline de Cock more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Caroline de Cock
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Caroline de Cock. 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 Caroline de Cock. The network helps show where Caroline de Cock may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Caroline de Cock
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Caroline de Cock. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Caroline de Cock 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 Caroline de Cock. Caroline de Cock is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | |
| 2 | 34 | |
| 3 | 301 | |
| 4 | 224 | |
| 5 | 2 | |
| 6 | 3 | |
| 7 | 7 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 9 | 41 | |
| 10 | 24 | |
| 11 | 2 | |
| 12 | 19 | |
| 13 | 29 | |
| 14 | 1 |
About Caroline de Cock
Caroline de Cock is a scholar working on Health Informatics, Applied Psychology and Health, having authored 14 papers that have together received 688 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Mobile Health and mHealth Applications (6 papers), Bone health and osteoporosis research (4 papers) and Vitamin D Research Studies (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Health Informatics (126 citations), Applied Psychology (214 citations) and General Health Professions (286 citations). Caroline de Cock has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, Belgium and Ireland. Frequent co-authors include Madison Milne‐Ives, Edward Meinert, Michelle Helena van Velthoven, Ching Lam, Melissa Harper Shehadeh, Nick de Pennington, Ernest Lim, Eduardo Normando, Guy Mole and Jean‐Yves Reginster. Their work appears in journals such as SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología, Journal of Medical Internet Research and Public Health Nutrition.
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.