Emma Medford
- Developmental and Educational Psychology top 5%
- Education top 5%
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology top 10%
- Social Psychology
- Clinical Biochemistry top 10%
- Co-authors
- Sarah LoganNaomi HughesSarah McGeownDougal Julian HareAnja WittkowskiSimon JonesStewart RustRhona S. Johnston
- Topics
- Reading and Literacy Development (6 papers)Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills (4 papers)Metabolism and Genetic Disorders (4 papers)
- Cited by
- Developmental and Educational PsychologyClinical BiochemistryExperimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Journals
- Learning and Individual DifferencesJournal of Applied Developmental PsychologyReading and Writing
- Partner nations
- United Kingdom
In The Last Decade
Emma Medford
11 papers receiving 419 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 62
- Developmental and Educational Psychology 219
- Education 205
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 108
- Social Psychology 72
- Clinical Biochemistry 68
Countries citing papers authored by Emma Medford
This map shows the geographic impact of Emma Medford'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 Emma Medford with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Emma Medford more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Emma Medford
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Emma Medford. 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 Emma Medford. The network helps show where Emma Medford may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Emma Medford
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Emma Medford. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Emma Medford 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 Emma Medford. Emma Medford is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13 | |
| 2 | 32 | |
| 3 | 18 | |
| 4 | 23 | |
| 5 | 10 | |
| 6 | 15 | |
| 7 | 13 | |
| 8 | 30 | |
| 9 | 19 | |
| 10 | 66 | |
| 11 | 206 |
About Emma Medford
Emma Medford is a scholar working on Clinical Biochemistry, Developmental and Educational Psychology and Statistics and Probability, having authored 11 papers that have together received 445 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Reading and Literacy Development (6 papers), Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills (4 papers) and Metabolism and Genetic Disorders (4 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Developmental and Educational Psychology (219 citations), Clinical Biochemistry (68 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (108 citations). Emma Medford has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Sarah Logan, Naomi Hughes, Sarah McGeown, Dougal Julian Hare, Anja Wittkowski, Simon Jones, Stewart Rust, Rhona S. Johnston and Debbie Smith. Their work appears in journals such as Learning and Individual Differences, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology and Reading and Writing.
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.