ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Identifying the 50 most productive researchers in top-tier, broad-scope educational psychology journals (2017-2022): a new perspective with a focus on publication trends and diversity.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study identified the most productive researchers in educational psychology by analyzing the number of published articles in top-tier and broad-scope educational psychology journals from 2017 to 2022. Building on prior productivity research, we extended the scope of the analysis in three distinct ways: (1) we expanded the sample to include the 50 most productive researchers; (2) we applied three different scoring methods to assess productivity; and (3) we used a broader and more objectively defined set of journals, based on the Web of Science "Psychology, Educational" category. In addition, we conducted an online survey to examine characteristics of highly productive researchers and examined their publications in the target journals with respect to research topics, open science practices, collaboration patterns, and internationalization. Results indicated that three senior researchers (i.e., Richard E. Mayer, Reinhard Pekrun, and Herbert W. Marsh) consistently ranked among the top 5. In addition, early-career researchers accounted for a substantial share of the top 50, ranging from 25% to 40%. However, the diversity of the most productive researchers was limited: the majority identified as White (86%), male (59%), non-first-generation students (60%), and first-generation faculty members (86%), and primarily held European (46%) or North American nationalities (39%). Publication trends showed a predominance of quantitative studies, with articles typically reporting 1.2 studies and an average of 4.2 authors. The most frequently used keywords were motivation, quantitative methods, and multimedia learning, reflecting a broad range of research interests within the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.