Countries citing papers authored by John E. Penick
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of John E. Penick'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 John E. Penick with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John E. Penick more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John E. Penick. 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 John E. Penick. The network helps show where John E. Penick may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John E. Penick
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John E. Penick.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John E. Penick 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 John E. Penick. John E. Penick 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
1.
Leonard, William H. & John E. Penick. (2009). Is the Inquiry Real? Working Definitions of Inquiry in the Science Classroom.. The Science Teacher. 76(5). 40–43.7 indexed citations
2.
Penick, John E.. (2002). Doing Real Science while Integrating Science and Technology.. Science education international. 13(3). 2–4.1 indexed citations
3.
Leonard, William J., et al.. (2002). What Does It Mean To Be Standards-Based?.. The Science Teacher. 69(4). 36–39.6 indexed citations
4.
Craven, John & John E. Penick. (2001). Preparing New Teachers to Teach Science: The Role of the Science Teacher Educator. The Electronic Journal of Science Education. 6(1). 1.12 indexed citations
5.
Penick, John E.. (1996). Questions Are the Answers.. The Science Teacher. 63(1). 26–29.19 indexed citations
6.
Penick, John E. & Robert E. Yager. (1993). Student Growth in Creative Skills in Middle School Science.. Science educator. 2(1). 21–27.3 indexed citations
7.
Penick, John E.. (1993). The Mysterious Closed System.. The Science Teacher. 60(2). 30–33.2 indexed citations
8.
Penick, John E.. (1991). Where's the Science?.. The Science Teacher. 58(5). 26–29.7 indexed citations
9.
Penick, John E., et al.. (1990). Problem Solving in the Real World.. The journal of college science teaching. 19(6).11 indexed citations
10.
Penick, John E., et al.. (1989). Characteristics of Innovative College Science Programs.. The journal of college science teaching. 19(1). 14–17.1 indexed citations
11.
Yager, Robert E. & John E. Penick. (1989). An Exemplary Program Payoff.. The Science Teacher. 56(1). 54–56.5 indexed citations
Penick, John E.. (1986). Science Education Research: Why Don't We Believe It?.. 25(3). 65–67.1 indexed citations
14.
Penick, John E.. (1986). Teachers Make Exemplary Programs.. Educational leadership. 44(2). 14–20.13 indexed citations
15.
Penick, John E.. (1984). Science, Technology, Society.31 indexed citations
16.
Yager, Robert E. & John E. Penick. (1983). School Science in Crisis.. 22(3). 67–70.9 indexed citations
17.
Penick, John E.. (1983). What Research Says: Encouraging Creativity.. Science and Children. 20(5). 32–33.2 indexed citations
18.
Penick, John E. & Robert E. Yager. (1983). The Search for Excellence in Science Education.. Phi Delta Kappan. 64(9). 7–7.43 indexed citations
19.
Shymansky, James A. & John E. Penick. (1979). Do Laboratory Teaching Assistants Exhibit Sex Bias. The journal of college science teaching. 8(4).1 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.