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.
Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields
19991.6k citationsRobert Elliott, Constance T. Fischer et al.British Journal of Clinical Psychologyprofile →
Countries citing papers authored by Robert Elliott
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Robert Elliott'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 Robert Elliott with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Robert Elliott more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Robert Elliott. 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 Robert Elliott. The network helps show where Robert Elliott may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Robert Elliott
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Robert Elliott.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Robert Elliott 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 Robert Elliott. Robert Elliott is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Elliott, Robert & Ladislav Timulák. (2015). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. Oxford University Press eBooks.268 indexed citations breakdown →
Elliott, Robert, et al.. (2006). Deconstructing Therapy Outcome Measurement with Rasch Analysis of a Measure of General Clinical Distress: The SCL-90-R.4 indexed citations
11.
Pillay, Hitendra & Robert Elliott. (2002). Distributed Learning: Understanding the Emerging Workplace Knowledge. The Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 13(1). 93–110.2 indexed citations
12.
Elliott, Robert. (2000). Who Are We as a Profession - and What Must We Become?. Journal of accountancy online/Journal of accountancy. 189(2). 81.14 indexed citations
13.
Elliott, Robert, Constance T. Fischer, & David L. Rennie. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 38(3). 215–229.1628 indexed citations breakdown →
14.
Elliott, Robert, et al.. (1997). To Market, to Market We Go. Journal of accountancy online/Journal of accountancy. 184(3). 81.8 indexed citations
15.
Elliott, Robert, et al.. (1997). Are You Ready for New Assurance Services. Journal of accountancy online/Journal of accountancy. 183(6). 47.33 indexed citations
16.
Elliott, Robert, et al.. (1997). First: Know Your Market. Journal of accountancy online/Journal of accountancy. 184(1). 56.13 indexed citations
17.
Elliott, Robert. (1994). The Future of Audits. Journal of accountancy online/Journal of accountancy. 178(3). 74.20 indexed citations
18.
Elliott, Robert & Peter Jacobson. (1991). U.S. accounting: a national emergency. 172(5). 54–58.38 indexed citations
19.
Elliott, Robert. (1989). Comprehensive Process Analysis: Understanding the change process in significant therapy events..116 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.