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.
This map shows the geographic impact of Roel Bosker'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 Roel Bosker with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Roel Bosker more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Roel Bosker. 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 Roel Bosker. The network helps show where Roel Bosker may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Roel Bosker
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Roel Bosker.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Roel Bosker 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 Roel Bosker. Roel Bosker is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Warrens, Matthijs J., et al.. (2019). Kappa Coefficients for Missing Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 79(3). 558–576.74 indexed citations
8.
Doolaard, Simone, et al.. (2019). Enhancing young students' high-level talk by using cooperative learning within Success for All lessons. Pedagogische Studiën. 96(2). 82–97.1 indexed citations
9.
Deunk, Marjolein, et al.. (2016). Differentiation practices in grade 2 and 3: variations in teacher behavior in mathematics and comprehensive reading lessons. The Journal of classroom interaction. 51(2). 49–71.3 indexed citations
10.
Deunk, Marjolein, et al.. (2016). Differentiation practices in grade 2 and 3: Variations in teacher behavior in mathematics and reading comprehension lessons. The Journal of classroom interaction. 51(2). 50–72.9 indexed citations
Snijders, Tom A. B. & Roel Bosker. (2011). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, 2nd edition (1st edition 1999). Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).35 indexed citations
14.
Boer, Hester de, Roel Bosker, & Greetje van der Werf. (2009). Schoolsucces van Friese vmbo-leerlingen: Verschillen in onderwijspositie, schoolloopbaanrendement en examencijfers tussen leerlingen in Friesland en de rest van Nederland. Pedagogische Studiën. 86(1). 4–20.1 indexed citations
Boer, Hester de, et al.. (2006). Onderadvisering in de provincie Friesland. Pedagogische Studiën. 83(6). 452–468.4 indexed citations
17.
Bosker, Roel, et al.. (2004). Hoe meritocratisch zijn schooladviezen. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 81(2). 89–103.22 indexed citations
18.
Bosker, Roel, Tom A. B. Snijders, & Henk Guldemond. (1999). PINT (Power IN Two-level designs): Estimating standard errors of regression coefficients in hierarchical linear models for power calculations. User's manual. University of Twente Research Information.5 indexed citations
19.
Bosker, Roel. (1994). Conceptual and Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research.. International Journal of Educational Research. 21(2). 123–231.13 indexed citations
20.
Bosker, Roel, et al.. (1989). Sociaal milieu en de onderwijsloopbaan.. Research Publications (Maastricht University).
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.