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 E. J. Smith'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 E. J. Smith with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites E. J. Smith more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by E. J. Smith. 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 E. J. Smith. The network helps show where E. J. Smith may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of E. J. Smith
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of E. J. Smith.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of E. J. Smith 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 E. J. Smith. E. J. Smith is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Martin, K., E. J. Smith, Kelle Barrick, & N. J. Richardson. (2018). Leveraging NIBRS to better understand sexual violence.1 indexed citations
4.
Smith, E. J. & Jacqueline Reid. (2018). Using Curriculum Mapping to Articulate Transferable Skill Development in Science Courses: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 26(7).1 indexed citations
5.
Reid, Jacqueline, et al.. (2016). Balancing the equation : Mentoring first-year female STEM students at a regional university. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 24(4).13 indexed citations
6.
Smith, E. J., Ben W. Greatrex, M.K. Taylor, & Ieva Stupans. (2013). ENRICHING LEARNING FOR FIRST YEAR CHEMISTRY STUDENTS: INTRODUCTION OF ADOBE CONNECT. RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library). 16(1). 94–101.2 indexed citations
7.
Liu, Xiufeng, et al.. (2012). Developing Computer Model-Based Assessment of Chemical Reasoning: A Feasibility Study.. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 31(3). 259–281.7 indexed citations
8.
Smith, E. J.. (2010). AFE Teacher Qualifications: Too Little, but It's Not Too Late. 44(1). 10.1 indexed citations
Rolls, Edmund T., Susan Francis, Richard Bowtell, et al.. (1997). Pleasant touch activates the orbitofrontal cortex. NeuroImage. 5.5 indexed citations
11.
Simpson, J. A., et al.. (1995). Ulysses Observations of 26 Day Intensity Variations of Cosmic Rays and Anomalous Helium over the South Pole. International Cosmic Ray Conference. 4. 956.7 indexed citations
Sanderson, T. R., K.‐P. Wenzel, E. J. Smith, & B. T. Tsurutani. (1983). ISEE-3 observations of 35-1600 keV protons and low frequency waves upstream of an interplanetary shock. International Cosmic Ray Conference. 10. 116–119.1 indexed citations
19.
Wenzel, K. P., T. R. Sanderson, C. F. Kennel, et al.. (1983). The interplanetary shock event of November 11/12 1978 - A comprehensive test of acceleration theory. NASA Technical Reports Server (NASA). 3. 131.2 indexed citations
20.
Smith, E. J., J. L. Clapperton, & J. A. F. Rook. (1980). The rate of digestion of the dry matter of forage material conserved in different ways.. Proceedings of The Nutrition Society. 39(3).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.