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.
Countries citing papers authored by Thomas L. Good
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Thomas L. Good'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 Thomas L. Good with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Thomas L. Good more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Thomas L. Good. 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 Thomas L. Good. The network helps show where Thomas L. Good may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Thomas L. Good
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Thomas L. Good.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Thomas L. Good 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 Thomas L. Good. Thomas L. Good is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Good, Thomas L. & Sharon L. Nichols. (2004). Inadequate Interest and Resources for Youth’s Socialization. Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 0–0.
5.
Good, Thomas L., et al.. (2000). Charter Schools: Another Reform Failure or a Worthwhile Investment?.. Phi Delta Kappan. 81(10). 745.10 indexed citations
Good, Thomas L.. (1993). New Direction in Research on Teacher and Student Expectations.. ScholarWorks@BGSU (Bowling Green State University). 6(1). 7.5 indexed citations
8.
Good, Thomas L.. (1990). Using Work-Groups in Mathematics Instruction.. Educational leadership. 47(4). 56–62.29 indexed citations
9.
Good, Thomas L. & Douglas A. Grouws. (1987). Increasing Teachers' Understanding of Mathematical Ideas through Inservice Training.. Phi Delta Kappan. 68(10).9 indexed citations
10.
Good, Thomas L. & Rhona S. Weinstein. (1986). Schools Make a Difference.. American Psychologist. 41(10).56 indexed citations
11.
Cooper, Harris & Thomas L. Good. (1983). Pygmalion grows up : studies in the expectation communication process. Longman eBooks.187 indexed citations
12.
Good, Thomas L. & Deborah Stipek. (1983). Individual Differences in the Classroom: A Psychological Perspective. Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 84(5). 9–43.18 indexed citations
13.
Good, Thomas L.. (1981). Teacher Expectations and Student Perceptions: A Decade of Research.. Educational leadership. 38(5).125 indexed citations
14.
Good, Thomas L.. (1979). Teaching Mathematics in Elementary Schools.. Educational Horizons. 57(4).5 indexed citations
15.
Good, Thomas L. & Douglas A. Grouws. (1979). Teaching and Mathematics Learning.. Educational leadership. 37(1).9 indexed citations
16.
Brophy, Jere & Thomas L. Good. (1973). Of Course the Schools Are Feminine, but Let's Stop Blaming Women for It.. Phi Delta Kappan.4 indexed citations
17.
Brophy, Jere & Thomas L. Good. (1973). Feminization of American Elementary Schools.. Phi Delta Kappan.10 indexed citations
18.
Good, Thomas L. & Jere Brophy. (1971). Analyzing Classroom Interaction: A More Powerful Alternative.. Educational Technology archive.16 indexed citations
19.
Good, Thomas L. & Jere Brophy. (1971). Questioned Equality for Grade One Boys and Girls.. The Reading Teacher.13 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.