World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Katherine L. McNeill

Katherine L. McNeill

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Social Sciences and Humanities 38 5846 5427 2776 2531 78 8447

Katherine L. McNeill publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Katherine L. McNeill between 2003 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Katherine L. McNeill published across 23 years, from 2003 to 2025, averaging 3.9 papers a year. Output peaked at 8 publications in 2018. 9 of the 90 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
2 4 6 8
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2003 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 8. Peak 8 publications in 2018. 2003: 1 publication 2004: 2 publications 2005: 0 publications 2006: 1 publication 2007: 0 publications 2008: 4 publications 2009: 5 publications 2010: 3 publications 2011: 6 publications 2012: 5 publications 2013: 5 publications 2014: 3 publications 2015: 4 publications 2016: 6 publications 2017: 5 publications 2018: 8 publications 2019: 6 publications 2020: 6 publications 2021: 5 publications 2022: 5 publications 2023: 1 publication 2024: 3 publications 2025: 6 publications
2003 2025

90 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Katherine L. McNeill: publications per year, 2003 to 2025
Year Publications
2003 1
2004 2
2005 0
2006 1
2007 0
2008 4
2009 5
2010 3
2011 6
2012 5
2013 5
2014 3
2015 4
2016 6
2017 5
2018 8
2019 6
2020 6
2021 5
2022 5
2023 1
2024 3
2025 6
Total 90
Download as CSV

Katherine L. McNeill publication distribution in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Katherine L. McNeill sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400
Bar chart with 54 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 44–53 to 570+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 474. Most scientists, 474, have 114–123 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 74–83 publications, is where this scientist sits. 44–53 publications: 28 scientists 54–63 publications: 61 scientists 64–73 publications: 161 scientists 74–83 publications: 225 scientists 84–93 publications: 301 scientists 94–103 publications: 390 scientists 104–113 publications: 406 scientists 114–123 publications: 474 scientists 124–133 publications: 453 scientists 134–143 publications: 434 scientists 144–153 publications: 407 scientists 154–163 publications: 411 scientists 164–173 publications: 391 scientists 174–183 publications: 313 scientists 184–193 publications: 319 scientists 194–203 publications: 304 scientists 204–213 publications: 285 scientists 214–223 publications: 246 scientists 224–233 publications: 213 scientists 234–243 publications: 170 scientists 244–253 publications: 167 scientists 254–263 publications: 162 scientists 264–273 publications: 138 scientists 274–283 publications: 138 scientists 284–293 publications: 113 scientists 294–303 publications: 106 scientists 304–313 publications: 95 scientists 314–323 publications: 101 scientists 324–333 publications: 81 scientists 334–343 publications: 69 scientists 344–353 publications: 56 scientists 354–363 publications: 36 scientists 364–373 publications: 42 scientists 374–383 publications: 41 scientists 384–393 publications: 44 scientists 394–403 publications: 27 scientists 404–413 publications: 30 scientists 414–423 publications: 20 scientists 424–433 publications: 29 scientists 434–443 publications: 29 scientists 444–453 publications: 25 scientists 454–463 publications: 19 scientists 464–473 publications: 21 scientists 474–483 publications: 11 scientists 484–493 publications: 17 scientists 494–503 publications: 7 scientists 504–513 publications: 6 scientists 514–523 publications: 12 scientists 524–533 publications: 10 scientists 534–543 publications: 7 scientists 544–553 publications: 6 scientists 554–563 publications: 12 scientists 564–569 publications: 8 scientists 570+ publications: 100 scientists
44–53 publications 570+

This scientist: 78 publications — 4th percentile

4% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
44–53 28
54–63 61
64–73 161
74–83 225 78
84–93 301
94–103 390
104–113 406
114–123 474
124–133 453
134–143 434
144–153 407
154–163 411
164–173 391
174–183 313
184–193 319
194–203 304
204–213 285
214–223 246
224–233 213
234–243 170
244–253 167
254–263 162
264–273 138
274–283 138
284–293 113
294–303 106
304–313 95
314–323 101
324–333 81
334–343 69
344–353 56
354–363 36
364–373 42
374–383 41
384–393 44
394–403 27
404–413 30
414–423 20
424–433 29
434–443 29
444–453 25
454–463 19
464–473 21
474–483 11
484–493 17
494–503 7
504–513 6
514–523 12
524–533 10
534–543 7
544–553 6
554–563 12
564–569 8
570+ 100
Download as CSV

Katherine L. McNeill D-index placement in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Katherine L. McNeill sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300
Bar chart with 71 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 100+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 313. Most scientists, 313, have 42 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 38 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30 D-Index: 177 scientists 31 D-Index: 210 scientists 32 D-Index: 222 scientists 33 D-Index: 188 scientists 34 D-Index: 181 scientists 35 D-Index: 243 scientists 36 D-Index: 261 scientists 37 D-Index: 272 scientists 38 D-Index: 278 scientists 39 D-Index: 300 scientists 40 D-Index: 297 scientists 41 D-Index: 308 scientists 42 D-Index: 313 scientists 43 D-Index: 300 scientists 44 D-Index: 269 scientists 45 D-Index: 260 scientists 46 D-Index: 228 scientists 47 D-Index: 251 scientists 48 D-Index: 203 scientists 49 D-Index: 186 scientists 50 D-Index: 187 scientists 51 D-Index: 166 scientists 52 D-Index: 138 scientists 53 D-Index: 141 scientists 54 D-Index: 131 scientists 55 D-Index: 137 scientists 56 D-Index: 109 scientists 57 D-Index: 129 scientists 58 D-Index: 95 scientists 59 D-Index: 105 scientists 60 D-Index: 106 scientists 61 D-Index: 86 scientists 62 D-Index: 94 scientists 63 D-Index: 77 scientists 64 D-Index: 79 scientists 65 D-Index: 59 scientists 66 D-Index: 68 scientists 67 D-Index: 51 scientists 68 D-Index: 49 scientists 69 D-Index: 40 scientists 70 D-Index: 43 scientists 71 D-Index: 40 scientists 72 D-Index: 50 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 43 scientists 75 D-Index: 45 scientists 76 D-Index: 45 scientists 77 D-Index: 30 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 31 scientists 80 D-Index: 29 scientists 81 D-Index: 18 scientists 82 D-Index: 21 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 15 scientists 85 D-Index: 15 scientists 86 D-Index: 19 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 12 scientists 89 D-Index: 7 scientists 90 D-Index: 19 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 13 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 13 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 7 scientists 97 D-Index: 6 scientists 98 D-Index: 6 scientists 99 D-Index: 6 scientists 100+ D-Index: 97 scientists
30 D-Index 100+

This scientist: 38 D-Index — 26th percentile

26% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 177
31 210
32 222
33 188
34 181
35 243
36 261
37 272
38 278 38
39 300
40 297
41 308
42 313
43 300
44 269
45 260
46 228
47 251
48 203
49 186
50 187
51 166
52 138
53 141
54 131
55 137
56 109
57 129
58 95
59 105
60 106
61 86
62 94
63 77
64 79
65 59
66 68
67 51
68 49
69 40
70 43
71 40
72 50
73 46
74 43
75 45
76 45
77 30
78 25
79 31
80 29
81 18
82 21
83 26
84 15
85 15
86 19
87 19
88 12
89 7
90 19
91 20
92 13
93 9
94 13
95 8
96 7
97 6
98 6
99 6
100+ 97
Download as CSV

Overview

Katherine L. McNeill is affiliated with Boston College in the United States and conducts research primarily in the social sciences and psychology, with a strong focus on education. Their scholarly work spans areas such as education, developmental and educational psychology, sociology and political science, general agricultural and biological sciences, and language and linguistics.

The main research topics covered by McNeill emphasize science education and pedagogy, educational strategies and epistemologies, teacher education and leadership studies, innovative teaching and learning methods, diverse educational innovations studies, education and critical thinking development, as well as educator training and historical pedagogy.

McNeill has published extensively in various academic journals, with frequent contributions to:

  • Science Education
  • Science Scope
  • Journal of Research in Science Teaching
  • Journal of Science Teacher Education
  • Journal of the Learning Sciences

Notable recent papers by McNeill include:

  • Developing Research-Based Instructional Materials to Support Large-Scale Transformation of Science Teaching and Learning: The Approach of the OpenSciEd Middle School Program (2021, Journal of Science Teacher Education)
  • Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions (2020, Science Education)
  • An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K-8 schools (2020, Science Education)
  • Redesign or relabel? How a commercial curriculum and its implementation oversimplify key features of the NGSS (2020, Science Education)
  • Planning for student-driven discussions: A revelatory case of curricular sensemaking for epistemic agency (2022, Journal of the Learning Sciences)

Throughout their career, McNeill has collaborated with several frequent co-authors including:

  • Benjamin R. Lowell
  • Kevin Cherbow
  • Renee Affolter
  • Samuel Lee
  • Caitlin G. McC. Fine

Best Publications

  • Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials

    Katherine L. McNeill;David J. Lizotte;Joseph Krajcik;Ronald W. Marx

  • A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts

    Leema K. Berland;Katherine L. McNeill

  • Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy

    Joseph Krajcik;Katherine L. McNeill;Brian J. Reiser

  • Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation

    Katherine L. McNeill;Diane Silva Pimentel

  • Scientific Explanations: Characterizing and Evaluating the Effects of Teachers' Instructional Practices on Student Learning.

    Katherine L. McNeill;Joseph Krajcik

  • Supporting Grade 5-8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science: The Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning Framework for Talk and Writing

    Katherine L. McNeill;Joseph S. Krajcik

  • Elementary Students' Views of Explanation, Argumentation, and Evidence, and Their Abilities to Construct Arguments over the School Year.

    Katherine L. McNeill

  • Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena

    Katherine L. McNeill

  • Synergy between Teacher Practices and Curricular Scaffolds to Support Students in Using Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Writing Arguments to Explain Phenomena.

    Katherine L. McNeill;Joseph Krajcik

  • Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations

    Katherine L. McNeill;Joseph Krajcik

  • Conducting Talk in Secondary Science Classrooms: Investigating Instructional Moves and Teachers’ Beliefs

    Diane Silva Pimentel;Katherine L. McNEILL

  • Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning

    Jay Fogleman;Katherine L. McNeill;Joseph Krajcik

  • Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Scientific Argumentation: The Impact of Professional Development on K–12 Teachers

    Katherine L. McNEILL;Amanda M. Knight

  • For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson†

    Leema K. Berland;Katherine L. McNeill

  • Urban High School Students’ Critical Science Agency: Conceptual Understandings and Environmental Actions Around Climate Change

    Katherine L. McNeill;Meredith Houle Vaughn

  • Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation

    Katherine L. McNeill;María González-Howard;Rebecca Katsh-Singer;Suzanna Loper

  • Use of First‐hand and Second‐hand Data in Science: Does data type influence classroom conversations?

    Barbara Hug;Katherine L. McNeill

  • Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms

    Katherine L. McNeill;Rebecca Katsh-Singer;María González-Howard;Suzanna Loper

  • Learning in a community of practice: Factors impacting english‐learning students' engagement in scientific argumentation

    María González-Howard;Katherine L. McNeill

  • Key challenges and future directions for educational research on scientific argumentation

    J. Bryan Henderson;Katherine L. McNeill;María González-Howard;Kevin Close

  • Intricacies of statistical inference and teachers’ understandings of them

    Patrick W. Thompson;Yan Liu;Luis A. Saldanha

Frequent Co-Authors

Joseph Krajcik
Joseph Krajcik Michigan State University
Brian J. Reiser
Brian J. Reiser Northwestern University
Ronald W. Marx
Ronald W. Marx University of Arizona
P. David Pearson
P. David Pearson University of California, Berkeley
William R. Penuel
William R. Penuel University of Colorado Boulder
Clark A. Chinn
Clark A. Chinn Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
C. Patrick Proctor
C. Patrick Proctor Boston College

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring online degrees in Social Sciences and Humanities opens up a range of flexible and accessible education options. For those aspiring to become psychologists, shortest online psyd programs offer a pathway to advanced clinical practice with an emphasis on efficiency and quick completion. If your interests lie in marriage and family therapy, you can find accelerated mft programs that streamline the journey to licensure and professional practice.

Affordability is a critical consideration for many students. With online masters in psychology, learners can pursue graduate education without the heavy financial burden. Additionally, aspiring educational leaders can look into 2 year ed d programs online for a fast-tracked route to high-impact roles in academia and administration.

Whether you want to work in research, counseling, therapy, or education, online degree options make it easier than ever to advance your career. Explore these related programs and choose the path that aligns best with your goals.

Best Scientists Citing Katherine L. McNeill

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles