Rachel K. Kim

544 total citations
9 papers, 338 citations indexed

About

Rachel K. Kim is a scholar working on Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science and Clinical Psychology. According to data from OpenAlex, Rachel K. Kim has authored 9 papers receiving a total of 338 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 6 papers in Social Psychology, 4 papers in Sociology and Political Science and 3 papers in Clinical Psychology. Recurrent topics in Rachel K. Kim's work include Deception detection and forensic psychology (4 papers), Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending (3 papers) and Misinformation and Its Impacts (2 papers). Rachel K. Kim is often cited by papers focused on Deception detection and forensic psychology (4 papers), Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending (3 papers) and Misinformation and Its Impacts (2 papers). Rachel K. Kim collaborates with scholars based in United States, Russia and Ireland. Rachel K. Kim's co-authors include Timothy R. Levine, Hee Sun Park, Lauren M. Hamel, J. Pete Blair, Amber N. W. Raile, Jounghwa Choi, Hee Sun Park, William F. Sharkey, Kim B. Serota and Miguel A. Villalona‐Calero and has published in prestigious journals such as Clinical Cancer Research, Human Communication Research and Communication Monographs.

In The Last Decade

Rachel K. Kim

9 papers receiving 308 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Rachel K. Kim United States 8 254 163 102 57 50 9 338
James E. Mahon United States 8 85 0.3× 126 0.8× 16 0.2× 63 1.1× 29 0.6× 20 371
Jon Bruschke United States 8 152 0.6× 108 0.7× 32 0.3× 21 0.4× 12 0.2× 15 269
Daniel Geschke Germany 8 89 0.4× 267 1.6× 10 0.1× 32 0.6× 28 0.6× 12 357
Thomas J. Flamson United States 5 133 0.5× 87 0.5× 21 0.2× 70 1.2× 10 0.2× 6 305
Daniel M. Rempala United States 6 70 0.3× 162 1.0× 16 0.2× 14 0.2× 36 0.7× 17 267
Sharareh Noorbaloochi United States 6 170 0.7× 258 1.6× 24 0.2× 126 2.2× 57 1.1× 6 369
T. Bradford Bitterly United States 6 216 0.9× 96 0.6× 12 0.1× 34 0.6× 21 0.4× 17 323
Eva Wennås Brante Sweden 11 32 0.1× 117 0.7× 12 0.1× 12 0.2× 42 0.8× 35 578
John S. Mallozzi United States 4 160 0.6× 239 1.5× 22 0.2× 12 0.2× 11 0.2× 9 324
Kira Alexander United States 3 95 0.4× 86 0.5× 24 0.2× 16 0.3× 14 0.3× 5 263

Countries citing papers authored by Rachel K. Kim

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Rachel K. Kim'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 Rachel K. Kim with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Rachel K. Kim more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Rachel K. Kim

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Rachel K. Kim. 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 Rachel K. Kim. The network helps show where Rachel K. Kim may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Rachel K. Kim

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Rachel K. Kim. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Rachel K. Kim 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 Rachel K. Kim. Rachel K. Kim is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

9 of 9 papers shown
1.
Paik, Paul K., Rachel K. Kim, Linda S. Ahn, et al.. (2020). A Phase II Trial of Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Stage IV Squamous Cell Lung Cancers. Clinical Cancer Research. 26(8). 1796–1802. 10 indexed citations
2.
Kim, Rachel K. & Timothy R. Levine. (2011). The Effect of Suspicion on Deception Detection Accuracy: Optimal Level or Opposing Effects?. Communication Reports. 24(2). 51–62. 34 indexed citations
3.
Levine, Timothy R., Rachel K. Kim, & Lauren M. Hamel. (2010). People Lie for a Reason: Three Experiments Documenting the Principle of Veracity. Communication Research Reports. 27(4). 271–285. 81 indexed citations
4.
Levine, Timothy R., Rachel K. Kim, & J. Pete Blair. (2009). (In)accuracy at Detecting True and False Confessions and Denials: An Initial Test of a Projected Motive Model of Veracity Judgments. Human Communication Research. 36(1). 82–102. 66 indexed citations
5.
Raile, Amber N. W., et al.. (2008). Connections at Work: How Friendship Networks Relate to Job Satisfaction. Communication Research Reports. 25(2). 168–178. 14 indexed citations
6.
Levine, Timothy R., Rachel K. Kim, & Lauren M. Hamel. (2007). People Lie for a Reason: An Experimental Test of the Principle of Veracity. 1–14. 12 indexed citations
7.
Levine, Timothy R., Hee Sun Park, & Rachel K. Kim. (2007). Some Conceptual and Theoretical Challenges for Cross-Cultural Communication Research in the 21st Century. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. 36(3). 205–221. 37 indexed citations
8.
Levine, Timothy R., et al.. (2006). Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model. Communication Monographs. 73(3). 243–260. 78 indexed citations
9.
Sharkey, William F., Hee Sun Park, & Rachel K. Kim. (2004). Intentional self‐embarrassment. Communication Studies. 55(2). 379–399. 6 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by James E. Mahon Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Jon Bruschke Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Daniel Geschke Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Thomas J. Flamson Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Daniel M. Rempala Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Sharareh Noorbaloochi Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by T. Bradford Bitterly Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Eva Wennås Brante Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by John S. Mallozzi Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Kira Alexander
Rankless by CCL
2026