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.
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
20041.1k citationsJonathan Osborne, Sibel Erduran et al.Journal of Research in Science Teachingprofile →
Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom
2005509 citationsShirley Simon, Sibel Erduran et al.International Journal of Science Educationprofile →
Citations per year, relative to Jonathan Osborne Jonathan Osborne (= 1×)
peers
Philip Bell
Countries citing papers authored by Jonathan Osborne
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Jonathan Osborne'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 Jonathan Osborne with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jonathan Osborne more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Jonathan Osborne
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jonathan Osborne. 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 Jonathan Osborne. The network helps show where Jonathan Osborne may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jonathan Osborne
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jonathan Osborne.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jonathan Osborne 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 Jonathan Osborne. Jonathan Osborne 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.
Dillon, Justin & Jonathan Osborne. (2010). Introduction: Research matters. Research Portal (King's College London).2 indexed citations
2.
Avraamidou, Lucy & Jonathan Osborne. (2008). Science as Narrative: The story of the discovery of penicillin. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).5 indexed citations
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
7.
Simon, Shirley, Sibel Erduran, & Jonathan Osborne. (2005). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education. 28(2-3). 235–260.509 indexed citations breakdown →
Osborne, Jonathan, Sibel Erduran, & Shirley Simon. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10). 994–1020.1065 indexed citations breakdown →
Simon, Shirley, Jonathan Osborne, & Sibel Erduran. (2004). Association of Tutors in Science Education, Annual Day Conference, Bedford.2 indexed citations
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
14.
Collins, Harry, et al.. (2000). Forum:Beyond 2000. Studies in Science Education. 35(1). 167–173.13 indexed citations
Osborne, Jonathan. (1991). Approaches to the Teaching of AT16―The Earth in Space : Issues, Problems and Resources. School science review. 72(260). 7–15.12 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.