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.
Modelling smartphone addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyberloafing in university students
2016306 citationsŞahin Gökçearslan, Filiz Mumcu et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Filiz Mumcu'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 Filiz Mumcu with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Filiz Mumcu more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Filiz Mumcu. 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 Filiz Mumcu. The network helps show where Filiz Mumcu may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Filiz Mumcu
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Filiz Mumcu.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Filiz Mumcu 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 Filiz Mumcu. Filiz Mumcu is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Çevik, Yasemin Demiraslan, et al.. (2015). Özdüzenlemenin Dikkat Kontrolü Boyutu: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması. 2(2). 229–238.2 indexed citations
13.
Çevik, Yasemin Demiraslan, et al.. (2014). Çevrimiçi Ortamda Yapılan Grup Tartışmasındaki İletişim Örüntülerinin Söylem Çözümlemesi Yoluyla İncelenmesi. DergiPark (Istanbul University).2 indexed citations
14.
Mumcu, Filiz & Yasemin Koçak Usluel. (2010). ICT IN VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS: TEACHERS' INSTRUCTIONAL, MANAGERIAL AND PERSONAL USE MATTERS. The turkish online journal of educational technology. 9(1). 98–106.20 indexed citations
15.
Mumcu, Filiz, et al.. (2010). Bilgi ve Iletişim Teknolojilerinin Öğrenme-Öğretme Süreçleriyle Bütünleştirilmesine Yönelik Bir Ders Plani Örneği. EĞİTİM VE BİLİM. 32(146). 54–63.1 indexed citations
16.
Mumcu, Filiz, et al.. (2008). Integration of ICT Into The Teaching-Learning Process: Toward A Unified Model. EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. 2008(1). 2384–2389.14 indexed citations
17.
Usluel, Yasemin Koçak, Filiz Mumcu, & Yasemin Demiraslan Çevik. (2007). Öğrenme-Öğretme Sürecinde Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri: Öğretmenlerin Entegrasyon Süreci ve Engelleriyle İlgili Görüşleri. DergiPark (Istanbul University). 32(32). 164–178.38 indexed citations
18.
Usluel, Yasemin Koçak, Yasemin Demiraslan Çevik, & Filiz Mumcu. (2007). Integrating ICT into Classrooms: A note from Turkish Teachers. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 2007(1). 1569–1575.4 indexed citations
19.
Aşkar, Petek, Yasemin Koçak Usluel, & Filiz Mumcu. (2006). Logistic Regression Modeling for Predicting Task-Related ICT Use in Teaching. Educational Technology & Society. 9(2). 141–151.35 indexed citations
20.
Mumcu, Filiz, et al.. (2004). Mesleki ve Teknik Okul Öğretmenlerinin Bilgisayar Kullanımları ve Engeller. DergiPark (Istanbul University). 26(26). 91–99.6 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.