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.
The revised two‐factor Study Process Questionnaire: R‐SPQ‐2F
20011.5k citationsDavid Kember, Doris Y. P. Leung et al.profile →
A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching
This map shows the geographic impact of David Kember'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 Kember with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David Kember more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David Kember. 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 Kember. The network helps show where David Kember may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David Kember
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David Kember.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David Kember 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 Kember. David Kember is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Kember, David, et al.. (2018). A conceptual basis and key components for pharmacy core curriculum in the age of artificial intelligence. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).2 indexed citations
4.
Kember, David. (2015). Taking qualitative studies beyond findings of a limited number of categories, with motivational orientation as an example. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).2 indexed citations
5.
Kember, David, et al.. (2015). An evolving approach to the teaching of writing skills to university students for whom English is an additional language. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).1 indexed citations
Kember, David, Alister Jones, Jan McKay, et al.. (2001). Reflective teaching and learning in the health professions : action research in professional education. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).21 indexed citations
Kember, David & David Murphy. (1994). 53 interesting activities for open learning courses. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).5 indexed citations
14.
Kember, David. (1993). Improving teaching through action research / David Kember and Mavis Kelly. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).7 indexed citations
15.
Kelly, Mavis & David Kember. (1992). Government Policy and Institutional Practice in Tertiary Distance Education: A Hong Kong Case Study. International journal of e-learning & distance education. 7(1). 83–103.2 indexed citations
Kember, David. (1991). A Curriculum Development Model Based on Deforestation and the Work of Kafka.. Higher education review. 24(1). 7–13.4 indexed citations
18.
Kember, David & David Murphy. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design. Educational Technology archive. 30(8). 42–47.27 indexed citations
19.
Murphy, David & David Kember. (1989). Mathematical typesetting from an operator perspective. Educational Technology archive. 29(4). 40–44.1 indexed citations
20.
Kember, David, et al.. (1987). Approaches to Studying Research and Its Implications for the Quality of Learning From Distance Education. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania).10 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.