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.
Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom
19941.1k citationsR. Driver, Hilary Asoko et al.Educational Researcherprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of John Leach'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 Leach with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites John Leach more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by John Leach. 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 Leach. The network helps show where John Leach may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of John Leach
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of John Leach.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of John Leach 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 Leach. John Leach is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Millar, Robin, John Leach, Jonathan Osborne, & Mary Ratcliffe. (2006). Improving Subject Teaching: Lessons from Research in Science Education. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).27 indexed citations
Leach, John & Phil Scott. (2003). Learning science in the classroom: Drawing on individual and social perspectives. Science Education. 12(1).5 indexed citations
Ratcliffe, Mary, et al.. (2002). The nature of science education research. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).1 indexed citations
8.
Leach, John. (2002). Teachers' views on the future of the secondary science curriculum. School science review. 83(304). 43–50.6 indexed citations
9.
Millar, Robin, John Leach, Jonathan Osborne, et al.. (2002). Towards Evidence-Based Practice in Science Education. Research Portal (King's College London). 84(307). 19–20.8 indexed citations
10.
Millar, Robin, John Leach, Jonathan Osborne, & Mary Ratcliffe. (2000). Evidence-based Practice in Science Education: A New Research Network. Research Portal (King's College London). 12–13.1 indexed citations
Leach, John. (1998). So What Do They Really Think Practical Work Is All About? Past-16 Science Students' Views about Experimental Enquiry..1 indexed citations
17.
Leach, John. (1997). An ASE policy on science education research. Education in science. 24–25.2 indexed citations
18.
Leach, John & Philip Scott. (1995). The demands of learning science concepts: issues of theory and practice. School science review. 76(277). 47–51.37 indexed citations
19.
Driver, R., Hilary Asoko, John Leach, Philip Scott, & Eduardo Fleury Mortimer. (1994). Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher. 23(7). 5–12.1131 indexed citations breakdown →
20.
Leach, John. (1978). A journal kept by John Leach, during his confinement by the British, Boston gaol, in 1775.12 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.