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.
Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research.
This map shows the geographic impact of Peter C. Hill'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 Peter C. Hill with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter C. Hill more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter C. Hill. 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 Peter C. Hill. The network helps show where Peter C. Hill may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter C. Hill
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter C. Hill.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter C. Hill 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 Peter C. Hill. Peter C. Hill 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.
Davis, Don E., Joshua N. Hook, Peter C. Hill, et al.. (2019). Seven challenges of an interdisciplinary project to measure intellectual humility. The Journal of psychology and Christianity. 38(3). 148–156.1 indexed citations
2.
Hill, Peter C., et al.. (2018). Glad Intellectual Dependence on God: A Theistic Account of Intellectual Humility. The Journal of psychology and Christianity. 37(3). 195.5 indexed citations
Sun, Xiumei, Joseph Lindsay, Lee H. Monsein, Peter C. Hill, & Paul J. Corso. (2012). Silent Brain Injury After Cardiac Surgery: A Review. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 60(9). 791–797.87 indexed citations
McMinn, Mark R. & Peter C. Hill. (2011). Clinical Training in Explicitly Christian Doctoral Programs: Introduction to the Special Issue. Digital Commons - George Fox University (George Fox University). 30(2). 99.1 indexed citations
Welton, Gary L., Peter C. Hill, & Kevin S. Seybold. (2008). Forgiveness in the Trenches: Empathy, Perspective Taking, and Anger. The Journal of psychology and Christianity. 27(2). 168.16 indexed citations
Park, Jung‐Won, Peter C. Hill, Philip Hugenholtz, N. Chung, & F. Jung. (2004). Magnetocardiography predicts coronary artery disease in patients presenting with acute chest pain. European Heart Journal. 25. 303–304.2 indexed citations
Hill, Peter C., et al.. (2002). Radiologische Folgen des Reaktorunfalls in Tschernobyl. JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich).1 indexed citations
16.
Hill, Peter C. & Todd W. Hall. (2002). Relational schemas in processing one's image of God and self.. The Journal of psychology and Christianity.21 indexed citations
Seybold, Kevin S., et al.. (2001). Physiological and psychological correlates of forgiveness.. The Journal of psychology and Christianity.88 indexed citations
19.
Benner, David G. & Peter C. Hill. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of psychology & counseling.2 indexed citations
20.
Hill, Peter C. & Eric Butter. (1995). The role of religion in promoting physical health.. The Journal of psychology and Christianity.37 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.