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.
Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research
Countries citing papers authored by Troy D. Sadler
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Troy D. Sadler'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 Troy D. Sadler with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Troy D. Sadler more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Troy D. Sadler. 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 Troy D. Sadler. The network helps show where Troy D. Sadler may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Troy D. Sadler
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Troy D. Sadler.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Troy D. Sadler 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 Troy D. Sadler. Troy D. Sadler is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Fortus, David, Jing Lin, Knut Neumann, & Troy D. Sadler. (2022). The role of affect in science literacy for all. International Journal of Science Education. 44(4). 535–555.39 indexed citations
8.
Ke, Li, Troy D. Sadler, Laura Zangori, & Patricia Friedrichsen. (2021). Developing and Using Multiple Models to Promote Scientific Literacy in the Context of Socio-Scientific Issues. Science & Education. 30(3). 589–607.103 indexed citations breakdown →
Sadler, Troy D., et al.. (2016). Thai Pre-Service Science Teachers' Struggles in Using Socio-Scientific Issues (SSIs) during Practicum.. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. 17(2).12 indexed citations
14.
Sadler, Troy D., et al.. (2015). Pre-Service Science Teachers' Perceptions and Practices of Socioscientific Issue-Based Teaching.. 38(2). 102–125.1 indexed citations
15.
Sadler, Troy D. & Christopher D. Murakami. (2014). Socio-scientific Issues based Teaching and Learning: Hydrofracturing as an Illustrative context of a Framework for Implementation and Research. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología.13 indexed citations
16.
Burgin, Stephen R. & Troy D. Sadler. (2010). CREATING LINKS BETWEEN STUDENTS' PERSONAL AND GLOBAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE THROUGH RESEARCH APPRENTİCESHİPS. KIRŞEHİR EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ DERGİSİ. 11(4).2 indexed citations
17.
Sadler, Troy D. & Lyle McKinney. (2010). Scientific Research for Undergraduate Students: A Review of the Literature.. The journal of college science teaching. 39(5). 43–49.52 indexed citations
18.
Barab, Sasha A., et al.. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: A framework for socioscientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 16.17 indexed citations
19.
Sadler, Troy D., et al.. (2005). Inquiry in the Community.. The Science Teacher. 72(4). 42–43.1 indexed citations
20.
Sadler, Troy D.. (2004). Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Socioscientific Decision-Making as Integral Components of Scientific Literacy.. Science educator. 13(1). 39–48.72 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.