Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature
- Journal
- Education Sciences
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010022 →Countries where authors are citing Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature
This map shows the geographic impact of Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature. 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 Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature
This network shows the impact of Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature.
About Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature
This paper, published in 2021, received 353 indexed citations . Written by Michail Kalogiannakis, Stamatios Papadakis and Alkinoos-Ioannis Zourmpakis covering the research area of Computer Science Applications and Developmental and Educational Psychology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Developmental and Educational Psychology (221 citations), Education (138 citations) and Information Systems (100 citations). Published in Education Sciences.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010022.