Emily B. Moore

3.6k total citations · 2 hit papers
43 papers, 2.6k citations indexed

About

Emily B. Moore is a scholar working on Developmental and Educational Psychology, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition and Human-Computer Interaction. According to data from OpenAlex, Emily B. Moore has authored 43 papers receiving a total of 2.6k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 10 papers in Developmental and Educational Psychology, 9 papers in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition and 9 papers in Human-Computer Interaction. Recurrent topics in Emily B. Moore's work include Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods (7 papers), Material Dynamics and Properties (6 papers) and nanoparticles nucleation surface interactions (5 papers). Emily B. Moore is often cited by papers focused on Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods (7 papers), Material Dynamics and Properties (6 papers) and nanoparticles nucleation surface interactions (5 papers). Emily B. Moore collaborates with scholars based in United States, Canada and Argentina. Emily B. Moore's co-authors include Valeria Molinero, Katherine K. Perkins, Ezequiel de la Llave, Damián A. Scherlis, Kai Welke, Robert Parson, Noah S. Podolefsky, Bruce N. Walker, N. Sanjay Rebello and Paula V. Engelhardt and has published in prestigious journals such as Nature, The Journal of Chemical Physics and SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.

In The Last Decade

Emily B. Moore

39 papers receiving 2.6k citations

Hit Papers

Water Modeled As an Intermediate Element between Carbon a... 2008 2026 2014 2020 2008 2011 250 500 750

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Emily B. Moore United States 14 1.1k 946 507 500 386 43 2.6k
Marco Ronchetti Italy 22 2.7k 2.5× 799 0.8× 582 1.1× 588 1.2× 879 2.3× 83 4.1k
Ian Johnston Australia 24 665 0.6× 123 0.1× 1.0k 2.0× 1.6k 3.1× 176 0.5× 108 4.8k
John Russo Italy 31 2.3k 2.2× 461 0.5× 663 1.3× 888 1.8× 801 2.1× 103 3.6k
Stephen H. Davis United States 49 4.4k 4.2× 1.0k 1.1× 602 1.2× 2.4k 4.9× 780 2.0× 246 12.7k
D. F. Holcomb United States 23 1.4k 1.4× 105 0.1× 1.4k 2.7× 298 0.6× 600 1.6× 48 3.5k
Joël Chevrier France 33 1.1k 1.0× 85 0.1× 2.3k 4.5× 473 0.9× 213 0.6× 124 3.5k
Pekka Koskinen Finland 26 3.5k 3.3× 189 0.2× 1.4k 2.7× 615 1.2× 231 0.6× 85 4.5k
Martin Grant Canada 45 4.6k 4.3× 1.8k 1.9× 1.2k 2.4× 575 1.1× 1.9k 5.0× 169 7.4k
David Perry United Kingdom 36 649 0.6× 162 0.2× 835 1.6× 675 1.4× 40 0.1× 82 3.2k
Susan McKay United States 11 515 0.5× 139 0.1× 286 0.6× 351 0.7× 48 0.1× 45 2.2k

Countries citing papers authored by Emily B. Moore

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Emily B. Moore'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 Emily B. Moore with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Emily B. Moore more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Emily B. Moore

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Emily B. Moore. 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 Emily B. Moore. The network helps show where Emily B. Moore may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Emily B. Moore

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Emily B. Moore. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Emily B. Moore 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 Emily B. Moore. Emily B. Moore 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
2.
Moore, Emily B., et al.. (2024). LESSONS LEARNED FROM TEACHING SYSTEM THINKING TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). 1 indexed citations
3.
Eisenberg, Michael, et al.. (2024). Insights from Youth Co-designers on Remote Multimodal Prototyping with Paper Playground. 818–822. 2 indexed citations
4.
Master, Emma R., et al.. (2024). Using systems thinking to understand bio-product commercialization: The chemical engineer's perspective. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).
5.
Moore, Emily B., et al.. (2022). For one or for all?. 1–11. 1 indexed citations
6.
Walker, Bruce N., et al.. (2021). Identifying and evaluating conceptual representations for auditory-enhanced interactive physics simulations. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces. 15(3). 323–334. 2 indexed citations
7.
Moore, Emily B., et al.. (2021). Multimodality and inclusion: Educator perceptions of physics simulation auditory display. The Physics Video Demonstration Database (Cornell University). 123–128. 3 indexed citations
8.
Johnson, Nicole, et al.. (2020). Coordinating epistemic frames in informal physics: Agency, support, and technology. The Physics Video Demonstration Database (Cornell University). 159–164. 4 indexed citations
9.
Walker, Bruce N., et al.. (2019). Design and evaluation of a multimodal physics simulation. 7. 2 indexed citations
10.
Walker, Bruce N., et al.. (2018). Sonic Interaction Design for Science Education. Ergonomics in Design The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications. 27(1). 5–10. 7 indexed citations
11.
Moore, Emily B., et al.. (2016). Investigating Student Learning with Accessible Interactive Physics Simulations. The Physics Video Demonstration Database (Cornell University). 232–235. 2 indexed citations
13.
Moore, Emily B., et al.. (2015). Effective Student Learning of Fractions with an Interactive Simulation. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida). 34(3). 273–298. 18 indexed citations
14.
Moore, Emily B., et al.. (2015). Using Technology Effectively to Teach about Fractions. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida). 20(4). 19–25. 4 indexed citations
15.
Rehn, Daniel A., Emily B. Moore, Noah S. Podolefsky, & Noah D. Finkelstein. (2013). Tools for High-Tech Tool Use: A Framework and Heuristics for Using Interactive Simulations. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 2(1). 31–55. 16 indexed citations
16.
Perkins, Katherine K., et al.. (2012). Creating Effective Interactive Tools for Learning: Insights from the PhET Interactive Simulations Project. EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. 2012(1). 436–441. 5 indexed citations
17.
Perkins, Katherine K., Emily B. Moore, Noah S. Podolefsky, et al.. (2012). Towards research-based strategies for using PhET simulations in middle school physical science classes. AIP conference proceedings. 295–298. 42 indexed citations
18.
Moore, Emily B. & Valeria Molinero. (2011). Is it cubic? Ice crystallization from deeply supercooled water. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 13(44). 20008–20008. 173 indexed citations
19.
Moore, Emily B. & Valeria Molinero. (2011). Structural transformation in supercooled water controls the crystallization rate of ice. Nature. 479(7374). 506–508. 566 indexed citations breakdown →
20.
Moore, Emily B., Ezequiel de la Llave, Kai Welke, Damián A. Scherlis, & Valeria Molinero. (2010). Freezing, melting and structure of ice in a hydrophilic nanopore. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 12(16). 4124–4124. 256 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026