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.
Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms
2009545 citationsRandall M. Parker et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Randall M. Parker
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Randall M. Parker'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 Randall M. Parker with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Randall M. Parker more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Randall M. Parker
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Randall M. Parker. 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 Randall M. Parker. The network helps show where Randall M. Parker may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Randall M. Parker
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Randall M. Parker.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Randall M. Parker 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 Randall M. Parker. Randall M. Parker is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Szymanski, Edna Mora & Randall M. Parker. (2003). Work and Disability: Issues and Strategies in Career Development and Job Placement..59 indexed citations
Parker, Randall M.. (1993). Threats to the Validity of Research.. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 36(3).8 indexed citations
11.
Parker, Randall M. & Edna Mora Szymanski. (1992). Fishing and Error Rate Problem.. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 36(2). 66–69.4 indexed citations
12.
Parker, Randall M.. (1990). Science, Philosophy, and Politics in the Search for Truth in Rehabilitation Research.. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 34(2).1 indexed citations
13.
Green, Donald P. & Randall M. Parker. (1989). Vocational and Academic Attributes of Students with Different Learning Styles.. Journal of college student development. 30(5). 395–400.16 indexed citations
Szymanski, Edna Mora & Randall M. Parker. (1989). Competitive Closure Rate of Rehabilitation Clients with Severe Disabilities as a Function of Counselor Education and Experience.. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 32(4).9 indexed citations
16.
Szymanski, Edna Mora & Randall M. Parker. (1987). Supported Employment Research: A Commentary.. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 31(1). 59–63.1 indexed citations
17.
Parker, Randall M.. (1986). Vicissitudes of Rehabilitation Research.. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 30(1). 48–52.1 indexed citations
18.
Kasworm, Carol E. & Randall M. Parker. (1981). Educating Adults with Neurological Disorders.. 5(3). 2–2.
19.
Parker, Randall M., et al.. (1981). Rehabilitation counseling : foundations--consumers--service delivery. Allyn and Bacon eBooks.3 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.