Rachel Zajac

1.4k total citations
49 papers, 902 citations indexed

About

Rachel Zajac is a scholar working on Social Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience and Developmental and Educational Psychology. According to data from OpenAlex, Rachel Zajac has authored 49 papers receiving a total of 902 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 26 papers in Social Psychology, 25 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience and 12 papers in Developmental and Educational Psychology. Recurrent topics in Rachel Zajac's work include Deception detection and forensic psychology (23 papers), Memory Processes and Influences (21 papers) and Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies (9 papers). Rachel Zajac is often cited by papers focused on Deception detection and forensic psychology (23 papers), Memory Processes and Influences (21 papers) and Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies (9 papers). Rachel Zajac collaborates with scholars based in New Zealand, Australia and United States. Rachel Zajac's co-authors include Harlene Hayne, Fiona Jack, Sarah O’Neill, Julien Gross, Nina Westera, Maryanne Garry, Michael Taylor, Jules Kieser, Martine B. Powell and Deirdre A. Brown and has published in prestigious journals such as SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología, The Journal of Infectious Diseases and Child Abuse & Neglect.

In The Last Decade

Rachel Zajac

49 papers receiving 862 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 Zajac New Zealand 17 468 467 322 144 131 49 902
Lindsay C. Malloy United States 16 475 1.0× 415 0.9× 655 2.0× 143 1.0× 34 0.3× 43 1.0k
Joanna Pozzulo Canada 16 544 1.2× 679 1.5× 109 0.3× 162 1.1× 183 1.4× 92 1000
Mark R. Kebbell Australia 23 665 1.4× 502 1.1× 440 1.4× 257 1.8× 182 1.4× 88 1.4k
Sonja P. Brubacher Australia 18 412 0.9× 574 1.2× 419 1.3× 94 0.7× 26 0.2× 79 1.1k
Ann E. Tobey United States 5 354 0.8× 161 0.3× 261 0.8× 56 0.4× 74 0.6× 7 545
Stefanie J. Sharman Australia 20 411 0.9× 547 1.2× 250 0.8× 93 0.6× 21 0.2× 84 1.1k
Coral J. Dando United Kingdom 17 611 1.3× 538 1.2× 254 0.8× 48 0.3× 24 0.2× 51 936
Helen Westcott United Kingdom 13 376 0.8× 389 0.8× 468 1.5× 92 0.6× 55 0.4× 29 801
Dvora Horowitz Israel 16 856 1.8× 887 1.9× 1.1k 3.4× 209 1.5× 56 0.4× 18 1.9k
James Ost United Kingdom 20 599 1.3× 733 1.6× 265 0.8× 49 0.3× 18 0.1× 44 1.1k

Countries citing papers authored by Rachel Zajac

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Rachel Zajac

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Rachel Zajac

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Rachel Zajac. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Rachel Zajac 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 Zajac. Rachel Zajac 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.
Garry, Maryanne, et al.. (2023). Hits and Misses: Digital Contact Tracing in a Pandemic. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 19(4). 675–685. 1 indexed citations
2.
Westera, Nina, Martine B. Powell, Rachel Zajac, & Jane Goodman‐Delahunty. (2019). Courtroom Questioning of Child Sexual Abuse Complainants: Views of Australian Criminal Justice Professionals. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 3 indexed citations
3.
Zajac, Rachel, et al.. (2017). A historical comparison of Australian lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining child sexual abuse complainants. Child Abuse & Neglect. 72. 236–246. 8 indexed citations
4.
Zajac, Rachel & Deirdre A. Brown. (2017). Conducting Successful Memory Interviews with Children. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 35(3). 297–308. 11 indexed citations
5.
Taylor, Michael, et al.. (2016). Exploring the role of contextual information in bloodstain pattern analysis: A qualitative approach. Forensic Science International. 260. 1–8. 12 indexed citations
6.
Taylor, Michael, et al.. (2016). Bloodstain pattern classification: Accuracy, effect of contextual information and the role of analyst characteristics. Science & Justice. 56(2). 123–128. 22 indexed citations
7.
Jack, Fiona, et al.. (2015). Getting the Picture: Effects of Sketch Plans and Photographs on Children's, Adolescents' and Adults' Eyewitness Recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 29(5). 723–734. 11 indexed citations
8.
Kieser, Jules, et al.. (2014). Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons?. Science & Justice. 54(4). 267–273. 39 indexed citations
9.
Zajac, Rachel, Maryanne Garry, Kamala London, Felicity Goodyear‐Smith, & Harlene Hayne. (2013). Misconceptions about childhood sexual abuse and child witnesses: Implications for psychological experts in the courtroom. Memory. 21(5). 608–617. 20 indexed citations
10.
O’Neill, Sarah & Rachel Zajac. (2013). Preparing children for cross-examination: How does intervention timing influence efficacy?. Psychology Public Policy and Law. 19(3). 307–320. 13 indexed citations
11.
12.
O’Neill, Sarah, et al.. (2013). Addressing the negative effect of cross-examination questioning on children’s accuracy: Can we intervene?. Law and Human Behavior. 37(5). 354–365. 16 indexed citations
13.
Zajac, Rachel, Sarah O’Neill, & Harlene Hayne. (2012). Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination. Developmental Review. 32(3). 181–204. 55 indexed citations
14.
O’Neill, Sarah & Rachel Zajac. (2012). The role of repeated interviewing in children's responses to cross‐examination‐style questioning. British Journal of Psychology. 104(1). 14–38. 14 indexed citations
15.
Jack, Fiona, et al.. (2010). Improving childrens accuracy on target-absent lineups: Do the physical characteristics of the wildcard influence its success? -poster. 1(6110). 387–8. 1 indexed citations
16.
Zajac, Rachel, et al.. (2010). Exploring the effects of age and delay on children's person identifications: Verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and the influence of wildcards. British Journal of Psychology. 102(2). 161–183. 26 indexed citations
17.
Zajac, Rachel, et al.. (2009). Cross-Examination of Sexual Assault Complainants: A Developmental Comparison. Psychiatry Psychology and Law. 16(sup1). S36–S54. 72 indexed citations
18.
Zajac, Rachel, et al.. (2008). The role of psychosocial factors in young children's responses to cross‐examination style questioning. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 23(7). 918–935. 21 indexed citations
19.
Zajac, Rachel & Harlene Hayne. (2005). The negative effect of cross-examination style questioning on children's accuracy: older children are not immune. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 20(1). 3–16. 50 indexed citations
20.
Zajac, Rachel & Harlene Hayne. (2003). I don't think that's what really happened: The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children's reports.. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied. 9(3). 187–195. 85 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 Lindsay C. Malloy Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Joanna Pozzulo Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Mark R. Kebbell Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Sonja P. Brubacher Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Ann E. Tobey Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Stefanie J. Sharman Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Coral J. Dando Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Helen Westcott Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by Dvora Horowitz Breakdown of academic impact, for papers by James Ost
Rankless by CCL
2026