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 Mark Kutner'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 Mark Kutner with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mark Kutner more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Mark Kutner. 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 Mark Kutner. The network helps show where Mark Kutner may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Mark Kutner
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Mark Kutner.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Mark Kutner 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 Mark Kutner. Mark Kutner is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
15 of 15 papers shown
1.
Baldi, Stéphane, Mark Kutner, Elizabeth Greenberg, et al.. (2009). Technical Report and Data File User's Manual: For the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2009-476.. National Center for Education Statistics.12 indexed citations
2.
Baer, Justin, Mark Kutner, John Sabatini, & Sheida White. (2009). Basic Reading Skills and the Literacy of America's Least Literate Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Supplemental Studies. NCES 2009-481.. National Center for Education Statistics.96 indexed citations
3.
Greenberg, Elizabeth, et al.. (2008). Literacy behind Bars: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey: Chapter 4--Education and Job Training in Prison.. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education. 30(2). 27–34.1 indexed citations
4.
Kutner, Mark, et al.. (2007). Literacy in Everyday Life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2007-490.. National Center for Education Statistics.232 indexed citations
5.
Greenberg, Elizabeth, et al.. (2007). Literacy Behind Bars: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. NCES 2007-473.. National Center for Education Statistics.96 indexed citations
6.
Kutner, Mark, Elizabeth Greenberg, & Justin Baer. (2006). A First Look at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st Century. NCES 2006-470.. National Center for Education Statistics.207 indexed citations
Kutner, Mark. (1992). Study of ABE/ESL Instructor Training Approaches. Phase I Technical Report..2 indexed citations
10.
Kutner, Mark, et al.. (1992). Quality Indicators for Adult Education Programs: Lessons Learned from Other Programs..2 indexed citations
11.
Kutner, Mark. (1992). Staff Development for ABE and ESL Teachers and Volunteers. ERIC Digest..3 indexed citations
12.
Kutner, Mark. (1991). A Review of the National Workplace Literacy Program..11 indexed citations
13.
Kutner, Mark. (1990). Adult Education Programs and Services: A View from Nine Programs..1 indexed citations
14.
Fitzgerald, Tanya, et al.. (1983). Demographic determinants of success in the vocational rehabilitation of cardiac patients.. PubMed. 48(2). 35–8.1 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.