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.
Digital inclusion as a social determinant of health
2021318 citationsCynthia J. Sieck, Amy R. Sheon et al.npj Digital Medicineprofile →
New Literacies: A Dual-Level Theory of the Changing Nature of Literacy, Instruction, and Assessment
2017212 citationsDonald J. Leu, Julie Coiro et al.Journal of Educationprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Jill Castek'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 Jill Castek with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jill Castek more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jill Castek. 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 Jill Castek. The network helps show where Jill Castek may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jill Castek
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jill Castek.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jill Castek 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 Jill Castek. Jill Castek is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Sieck, Cynthia J., et al.. (2021). Digital inclusion as a social determinant of health. npj Digital Medicine. 4(1). 52–52.318 indexed citations breakdown →
4.
Beach, Richard, et al.. (2020). Fostering Preservice and In-Service ELA Teachers’ Digital Practices for Addressing Climate Change. Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida). 20(1). 4–36.4 indexed citations
Castek, Jill, et al.. (2016). Collaborative Online Inquiry: Exploring Students' Skills in Locating, Reading, and Communicating Information. UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona). 14(2). 58–79.2 indexed citations
Castek, Jill, et al.. (2015). Fear to Fascination: Learner Confidence and Blended Instruction for Digital Literacy Acquisition. PDXScholar (Portland State University).1 indexed citations
11.
Coiro, Julie, et al.. (2014). Wondering + Online Inquiry = Learning: Online Information Sources Can Form the Basis of Effective Inquiry-Based Learning If Teachers Construct Assignments to Promote Collaboration, Communication, and More Inquiry. Phi Delta Kappan. 96(3). 44.
Castek, Jill. (2008). How do 4th and 5th grade students acquire the new literacies of online reading comprehension? Exploring the contexts that facilitate learning. OpenCommons - UConn (University of Connecticut). 1–288.23 indexed citations
Holcomb, Lori, et al.. (2007). Unlocking the Potential of K-12 Classroom Websites to Enhance Learning. 43(1). 36.6 indexed citations
19.
Henry, Laurie A., Julie Coiro, & Jill Castek. (2005). Professional Materials. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 48(5). 442–445.1 indexed citations
20.
Leu, Donald J., et al.. (2004). The lessons that children teach us: Integrating children's literature and the new literacies of the Internet. The Reading Teacher. 57(5). 496–504.16 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.