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.
Graduate Employability, ‘Soft Skills’ Versus ‘Hard’ Business Knowledge: A European Study
2008685 citationsJane Andrews, Helen HigsonHigher Education in Europeprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Jane Andrews'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 Jane Andrews with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jane Andrews more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jane Andrews. 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 Jane Andrews. The network helps show where Jane Andrews may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jane Andrews
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jane Andrews.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jane Andrews 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 Jane Andrews. Jane Andrews is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Andrews, Jane & Robin Clark. (2016). A community based participatory research study into why some girls don't 'Do' engineering. International journal of engineering education. 32(6). 2415–2425.2 indexed citations
8.
Andrews, Jane, S.S. Phull, & Robin Clark. (2016). Equality & Equity: Effecting a Paradigm Shift in Engineering Education through Pedagogical Research. Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University).1 indexed citations
Andrews, Jane, Robin Clark, & Liz Thomas. (2012). Compendium of effective practice in higher education retention and success.13 indexed citations
11.
Andrews, Jane & Robin Clark. (2011). Peer mentoring works. Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University). 11(2). 89–99.2 indexed citations
12.
Andrews, Jane, et al.. (2011). Peer mentoring works! How peer mentoring enhances student success in Higher Education:evaluation toolkit. Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University).7 indexed citations
13.
Andrews, Jane & Robin Clark. (2011). Peer Mentoring Works! How Peer Mentoring Enhances Student Success in Higher Education.31 indexed citations
14.
Clark, Robin & Jane Andrews. (2010). Promoting scholarship - The way forward: Learning & teaching research in a complex environment – A typology. Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University).5 indexed citations
15.
Andrews, Jane & Robin Clark. (2009). Peer mentoring in higher education:a literature review. Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University). 18(5). 314–315.7 indexed citations
16.
Andrews, Jane & Helen Higson. (2008). Graduate Employability, ‘Soft Skills’ Versus ‘Hard’ Business Knowledge: A European Study. Higher Education in Europe. 33(4). 411–422.685 indexed citations breakdown →
Andrews, Jane, et al.. (2008). The impact of learning outcomes in business education: assessing value, relevance and graduate ability in a multi-country study of employers and business graduates.3 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.