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.
Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
20131.1k citationsScott Reeves, Joanne Goldman et al.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviewsprofile →
A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9
2007854 citationsMarilyn Hammick, Della Freeth et al.Medical Teacherprofile →
Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
2009842 citationsMerrick Zwarenstein, Joanne Goldman et al.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviewsprofile →
Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes
2017679 citationsScott Reeves, Ferruccio Pelone et al.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviewsprofile →
A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39
2016679 citationsScott Reeves, Simon Fletcher et al.Medical Teacherprofile →
An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research
This map shows the geographic impact of Scott Reeves'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 Scott Reeves with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Scott Reeves more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Scott Reeves. 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 Scott Reeves. The network helps show where Scott Reeves may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Scott Reeves
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Scott Reeves.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Scott Reeves 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 Scott Reeves. Scott Reeves is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Reeves, Scott, Simon Fletcher, Hugh Barr, et al.. (2016). A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Medical Teacher. 38(7). 656–668.679 indexed citations breakdown →
Kitto, Simon, Janice Chesters, Jill Thistlethwaite, & Scott Reeves. (2011). Sociology of interprofessional health care practice : critical reflections and concrete solutions. Nova Science Publishers eBooks.16 indexed citations
Freeth, Della, Marilyn Hammick, Scott Reeves, Ivan Koppel, & Hugh Barr. (2005). Effective interprofessional education : development, delivery and evaluation. Research Repository (Kingston University London).244 indexed citations
17.
Koppel, Ivan, Hugh Barr, Scott Reeves, Della Freeth, & Marilyn Hammick. (2001). Establishing a systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of interprofessional education. Research Repository (Kingston University London).18 indexed citations
Reeves, Scott, Julienne Meyer, Michael Glynn, & Jackie Bridges. (1999). Co-ordination of interprofessional health care teams in a general and emergency medicine directorate. ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).5 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.