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 Cheryl Brown'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 Cheryl Brown with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Cheryl Brown more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Cheryl Brown. 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 Cheryl Brown. The network helps show where Cheryl Brown may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Cheryl Brown
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Cheryl Brown.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Cheryl Brown 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 Cheryl Brown. Cheryl Brown is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Brown, Cheryl, et al.. (2016). Activity Theory as a lens to understand how Facebook develops knowledge application skills. The International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (The University of the West Indies). 12(3). 128–140.5 indexed citations
Brown, Cheryl, et al.. (2008). Trends in student use of ICTs in higher education in South Africa.20 indexed citations
14.
Brown, Cheryl & Laura Czerniewicz. (2008). e/merge 2006 Conference: Disciplinary differences in the use of educational technology.2 indexed citations
15.
Brown, Cheryl & Laura Czerniewicz. (2007). If we build it will they come? Investigating the relationship between students' access to and use of ICTs for learning. Open University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town). 21(6). 732–747.6 indexed citations
16.
Brown, Cheryl. (2006). Gendered access to and uses of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in South Africa: higher education experiences in the Western Cape. EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. 2006(1). 31–38.1 indexed citations
17.
Czerniewicz, Laura & Cheryl Brown. (2005). The Uses of Information and Communication (ICT) in Teaching and Learning in South African Higher Education Practices in the Western Cape. Research: Information and Communication Technologies.. Perspectives in Education. 23(1). 1–18.16 indexed citations
18.
Czerniewicz, Laura & Cheryl Brown. (2005). Access to ICTs for teaching and learning: From single artefact to inter-related resources. The International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (The University of the West Indies). 1(2). 42–56.20 indexed citations
19.
Brown, Cheryl, et al.. (2002). Family Literacy in New Brunswick: A Glimpse into Selected Initiatives.. English quarterly. 34. 46–58.
20.
Brown, Cheryl. (1983). The distinguishing characteristics of the older adult second language learner. University Microfilms International eBooks.3 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.