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.
Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations: A Research Synthesis
2017213 citationsSeth A. Parsons, Margaret Vaughn et al.Review of Educational Researchprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Roya Q. Scales
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Roya Q. Scales'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 Roya Q. Scales with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Roya Q. Scales more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Roya Q. Scales. 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 Roya Q. Scales. The network helps show where Roya Q. Scales may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Roya Q. Scales
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Roya Q. Scales.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Roya Q. Scales 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 Roya Q. Scales. Roya Q. Scales 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.
Ikpeze, Chinwe, et al.. (2021). A Multi-State Study of the Dominant Discourses in Teacher Candidates' Memories of Writing. Teacher education quarterly (Claremont, Calif.). 48(1). 79–99.1 indexed citations
Scales, Roya Q., et al.. (2017). Novice Teacher Leadership: Determining the Impact of a Leadership Licensure Requirement after One Year of Teaching.. 41(1).2 indexed citations
10.
Parsons, Seth A., Margaret Vaughn, Roya Q. Scales, et al.. (2017). Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations: A Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research. 88(2). 205–242.213 indexed citations breakdown →
Grisham, Dana L., Linda Smetana, Elizabeth Dobler, et al.. (2014). Are Teacher Candidates Learning What They Are Taught? Declarative Literacy Learning in 10 Teacher Preparation Programs.. Teacher education & practice. 27(1). 168–189.3 indexed citations
16.
Scales, Roya Q., et al.. (2014). Writing and Learning Online: Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Their Development as Writers and Teachers of Writing. ScholarWorks - WMU (Western Michigan University). 3(1). 9.1 indexed citations
17.
Scales, Roya Q., et al.. (2013). Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Teacher Leadership: Is It about Compliance or Understanding?.. Issues in teacher education. 22(2). 17–37.12 indexed citations
18.
Scales, Roya Q., et al.. (2013). Participation in University-Based Online Mentoring for First Year Teachers:Perceptions, Promising Practices, and Pitfalls.. 6(2). 49–63.1 indexed citations
19.
Parsons, Seth A., Dixie Massey, Margaret Vaughn, Roya Q. Scales, & Beverly S. Faircloth. (2011). Developing Teachers' Reflective Thinking and Adaptability in Graduate Courses.8 indexed citations
20.
Scales, Roya Q.. (2009). Teaching adaptations as they are related to academic task and student engagement.2 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.