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.
Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review
2012525 citationsDan Davies, Divya Jindal‐Snape et al.Thinking Skills and Creativityprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Dan Davies'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 Dan Davies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Dan Davies more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Dan Davies. 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 Dan Davies. The network helps show where Dan Davies may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Dan Davies
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Dan Davies.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Dan Davies 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 Dan Davies. Dan Davies is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Davies, Dan, et al.. (2014). Assessment without levels. Cardiff Metropolitan Research Repository (Cardiff Metropolitan University).1 indexed citations
7.
Davies, Dan, Divya Jindal‐Snape, Chris Collier, et al.. (2012). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 8. 80–91.525 indexed citations breakdown →
8.
Davies, Dan, et al.. (2009). Science 5-11: a guide for teachers. 2nd ed. ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University).3 indexed citations
Davies, Dan, et al.. (2003). Assessment for Enquiry: Supporting Teaching and Learning in Primary Science. Science education international. 14(4). 29–39.1 indexed citations
12.
Davies, Dan & Alan Howe. (2003). Teaching science and design and technology in the early years. ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University).7 indexed citations
Davies, Dan, et al.. (2002). Creativity, culture and citizenship in primary design and technology. ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University). 7(1). 26–28.1 indexed citations
15.
Davies, Dan, et al.. (2001). Primary design and technology for the future: creativity, culture and citizenship in the curriculum. ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University).1 indexed citations
16.
Davies, Dan & John C. Williams. (2001). Design and technology: two cultures or unitary concept?. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine. 6(3). 213–216.1 indexed citations
17.
Davies, Dan. (2000). Ten Years of Universal Primary Technology Education in England and Wales - What have we learnt?. ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University). 5(1). 26–35.3 indexed citations
18.
Matthews, Brian & Dan Davies. (1999). Changing Children's Images of Scientists: Can Teachers Make a Difference?.. School science review. 80(293). 79–85.24 indexed citations
19.
Davies, Dan. (1997). The relationship between science and technology in the primary curriculum - alternative perspectives. 2(2).8 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.