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.
This map shows the geographic impact of John Elliott'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 Elliott with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Elliott more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Elliott. 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 Elliott. The network helps show where John Elliott may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Elliott
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Elliott.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Elliott 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 Elliott. John Elliott 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.
Elliott, John, Tom Kai Ming Wang, Greg Gamble, et al.. (2017). A decade of improvement in the management of New Zealand ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients: results from the New Zealand Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) Audit Group national audits of 2002, 2007 and 2012.. PubMed. 130(1453). 17–28.3 indexed citations
2.
Elliott, John. (2015). Lesson y learning Study y la idea del docente como investigador. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado Continuación de la antigua Revista de Escuelas Normales. 29(3). 29–46.16 indexed citations
Elliott, John. (2011). The Seesaw Curriculum: It's time that curriculum policy matured. UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia).1 indexed citations
Elliott, John. (2010). Lesson and Learning Study: A globalising form of teacher research. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado Continuación de la antigua Revista de Escuelas Normales. 68.3 indexed citations
7.
Elliott, John. (2010). El "estudio de la ensenanza y del apren dizaje": una forma globalizadora de investigacion del profesorado. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.9 indexed citations
8.
Elliott, John, et al.. (2005). El palacio del Rey Planeta. Felipe IV y el Buen Retiro.1 indexed citations
9.
Elliott, John. (2005). Merging right : questions of access and merit in South African higher education reform, 1994-2002 : research article. Perspectives in Education. 23(1). 69–76.4 indexed citations
10.
Elliott, John. (2005). Merging Right: Questions of Access and Merit in South African Higher Education Reform, 1994-2002.. Perspectives in Education. 23(1). 1–8.12 indexed citations
11.
Elliott, John. (2004). The struggle to redefine the relationship between «knowledge» and «action» in the academy. Educar. 11–24.1 indexed citations
Elliott, John. (1998). The curriculum experiment : meeting the challenge of social change. British Journal of Educational Studies. 47(2).10 indexed citations
Elliott, John. (1979). The Case for School Self-Evaluation.. 22(1). 23–25.6 indexed citations
20.
Elliott, John. (1973). DEMAND-RESPONSIVE TRANSPORTATION AS SEEN BY THE TRANSIT WORKER. Highway Research Board Special Report.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.