This map shows the geographic impact of Kay Kinder'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 Kay Kinder with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Kay Kinder more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Kay Kinder. 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 Kay Kinder. The network helps show where Kay Kinder may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Kay Kinder
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Kay Kinder.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Kay Kinder 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 Kay Kinder. Kay Kinder is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Martin, Kerry, et al.. (2010). Positivity in Practice: Approaches to Improving Perceptions of Young People and Their Involvement in Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour..3 indexed citations
3.
Kinder, Kay, et al.. (2008). Evaluating the early impact of integrated children's services Round 1 summary report.6 indexed citations
4.
Murfield, Jenny, et al.. (2008). The Value of Social Care Professionals Working in Extended Schools.. Figshare.6 indexed citations
5.
Reid, M. J., et al.. (2007). Special effects: the distinctiveness of learning outcomes in relation to moving image education projects: final report. IOE EPrints.1 indexed citations
6.
Reid, M. J., et al.. (2007). Special effects: the distinctiveness of learning outcomes in relation to moving image education projects.2 indexed citations
7.
Kendall, Sally, et al.. (2007). Effective alternative provision. Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London).3 indexed citations
Ridley, Kate, et al.. (2005). Admissions and Exclusions of Pupils with Special Educational Needs. RR608..7 indexed citations
10.
Martin, Kerry, et al.. (2005). Evaluation of Behaviour and Education Support Teams. Research Report RR706..8 indexed citations
11.
Atkinson, Mary, et al.. (2005). multi-agency working. Journal of Early Childhood Research. 3(1). 7–17.36 indexed citations
12.
Doherty, Peter C., Kay Kinder, & Alex Scott. (2004). Delivering services to hard to reach families in On Track areas: definition, consultation and needs assessment.. CLOK (University of Central Lancashire).18 indexed citations
White, Richard, et al.. (2003). Towards Extended Schools: A Literature Review. Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London). 43(8). 386–7.19 indexed citations
15.
Kinder, Kay, et al.. (2002). Is the Curriculum Working?: The Key Stage 3 Phase of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Cohort Study. OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique).22 indexed citations
16.
Kinder, Kay. (2000). Working to plan : an evaluation of Lea behaviour support plans. Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London).1 indexed citations
17.
Brooks, Greg, et al.. (1997). Family Literacy Lasts: The NFER Follow-up Study of the Basic Skills Agency's Demonstration Programmes. OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique).30 indexed citations
18.
Haynes, Joanna, et al.. (1996). Versions of Primary Education. British Journal of Educational Studies. 44(3). 332–332.43 indexed citations
Alexander, Robin, et al.. (1989). Changing primary practice. Medical Entomology and Zoology.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.