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.
What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives
2018301 citationsPhillip Dawson, Michael Henderson et al.profile →
The challenges of feedback in higher education
2019161 citationsMichael Henderson, Tracii Ryan et al.profile →
Conditions that enable effective feedback
2019133 citationsMichael Henderson, Michael Phillips et al.Higher Education Research & Developmentprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Michael Phillips
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Michael Phillips'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 Michael Phillips with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Michael Phillips more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Michael Phillips
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Michael Phillips. 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 Michael Phillips. The network helps show where Michael Phillips may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Michael Phillips
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Michael Phillips.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Michael Phillips 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 Michael Phillips. Michael Phillips is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Voogt, Joke, Michael Phillips, Anneke Smits, et al.. (2019). Practicing and prospective teachers’ pedagogical reasoning about using technology in their educational practice: Part 1. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 13–16.1 indexed citations
Phillips, Michael, Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra, et al.. (2017). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework: Lineages of the First Ten Years of Research: Part 1. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 2376–2380.3 indexed citations
Phillips, Michael, et al.. (2011). Storytelling: A Portal to Understanding Entrepreneurial Organizations. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness. 5(3). 104–109.4 indexed citations
16.
Phillips, Michael. (2005). The Printing of Blake's Illustrations of the Book of Job. White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York). 22(2). 138–158.1 indexed citations
17.
Phillips, Michael. (2004). The printing of Blake's America a prophecy. White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York). 21(1). 18–38.1 indexed citations
18.
Jordan, Patricia J., et al.. (2004). We Train Teachers: Why Not Supervisors and Mentors?.. The Physical Educator. 61(4). 219–221.6 indexed citations
Phillips, Michael & Russell M. Church. (1984). Draft Sector Suite Console Requirements Specification.. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).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.