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.
Long-Term Trends in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medical Therapies in the United States
2001575 citationsRonald C. Kessler, Roger B. Davis et al.Annals of Internal Medicineprofile →
The Use of Complementary and Alternative Therapies to Treat Anxiety and Depression in the United States
2001465 citationsRonald C. Kessler, Jane Soukup et al.American Journal of Psychiatryprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of David Foster'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 David Foster with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David Foster more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David Foster. 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 David Foster. The network helps show where David Foster may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David Foster
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David Foster.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David Foster 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 David Foster. David Foster is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Foster, David, et al.. (2018). Home education in England. Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London).8 indexed citations
Foster, David & Harold L. Miller. (2009). A new format for multiple-choice testing: Discrete-option multiple-choice. Results from early studies.. 51(4). 355–369.11 indexed citations
Kessler, Ronald C., Jane Soukup, Roger B. Davis, et al.. (2001). The Use of Complementary and Alternative Therapies to Treat Anxiety and Depression in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry. 158(2). 289–294.465 indexed citations breakdown →
12.
Kessler, Ronald C., Roger B. Davis, David Foster, et al.. (2001). Long-Term Trends in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medical Therapies in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine. 135(4). 262–268.575 indexed citations breakdown →
13.
Foster, David, Russell S. Phillips, Mary Beth Hamel, & David M. Eisenberg. (2000). Alternative Medicine Use in Older Americans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 48(12). 1560–1565.145 indexed citations
Sireci, Stephen G., David Foster, Frédéric Robin, & James B. Olsen. (1997). Comparing Dual-Language Versions of an International Computerized-Adaptive Certification Exam. 1997(1).1 indexed citations
16.
Foster, David, et al.. (1994). Results of cancer information assessment of high school students in West Virginia.. PubMed. 90(6). 235–7.1 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.