World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Social Sciences and Humanities 60 1412 1258 668 586 235 27059

Ned Kock publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Ned Kock between 1996 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Ned Kock published across 30 years, from 1996 to 2025, averaging 8.5 papers a year. Output peaked at 21 publications in 2005. 14 of the 255 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1996 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 21. Peak 21 publications in 2005. 1996: 1 publication 1997: 4 publications 1998: 7 publications 1999: 9 publications 2000: 11 publications 2001: 12 publications 2002: 14 publications 2003: 6 publications 2004: 6 publications 2005: 21 publications 2006: 12 publications 2007: 16 publications 2008: 15 publications 2009: 15 publications 2010: 12 publications 2011: 12 publications 2012: 7 publications 2013: 3 publications 2014: 3 publications 2015: 10 publications 2016: 10 publications 2017: 11 publications 2018: 7 publications 2019: 6 publications 2020: 0 publications 2021: 3 publications 2022: 4 publications 2023: 4 publications 2024: 5 publications 2025: 9 publications
1996 2025

255 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Ned Kock: publications per year, 1996 to 2025
Year Publications
1996 1
1997 4
1998 7
1999 9
2000 11
2001 12
2002 14
2003 6
2004 6
2005 21
2006 12
2007 16
2008 15
2009 15
2010 12
2011 12
2012 7
2013 3
2014 3
2015 10
2016 10
2017 11
2018 7
2019 6
2020 0
2021 3
2022 4
2023 4
2024 5
2025 9
Total 255
Download as CSV

Ned Kock publications per year - data summary

  • Ned Kock, a Social Sciences and Humanities scholar from Texas A&M International University, has 255 publications recorded across 30 years, from 1996 to 2025.
  • The oldest publication on record dates to 1996 and the most recent to 2025.
  • The most productive year is 2005, with 21 publications.
  • The least productive year with any output is 1996, with 1 publication.
  • 1 of the 30 years in the span carries no publications at all (2020).
  • The rate of publication averages 8.5 papers per year over the whole span, or 8.8 per year counting only the 29 years with at least one publication.
  • The last 5 years on the chart (2021-2025) hold 25 publications, 10% of the career total.
  • Split into equal eras - 1996-2005: 91 publications (9.1 per year); 2006-2015: 105 publications (10.5 per year); 2016-2025: 59 publications (5.9 per year).
  • Comparing the opening and closing eras, the overall trend of publication is declining.

Ned Kock 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 Ned Kock 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, 234–243 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: 235 publications — 75th percentile

75% 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
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
234–243 170 235
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

Ned Kock publication distribution in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026 - data summary

  • The chart plots the publication count of all 7,777 Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026, grouped into 54 ranges running from 44–53 to 570+ publications.
  • Ned Kock, a Social Sciences and Humanities scholar from Texas A&M International University, records 235 publications - the 75th percentile of the discipline.
  • 75% of ranked Social Sciences and Humanities scientists score the same or lower than Ned Kock, and about 25% score higher.
  • The median of the discipline falls in the 164–173 publications range, and Ned Kock ranks above the median.
  • The most crowded range is 114–123 publications, holding 474 scientists (6% of the field).
  • 57% of the field sits in the lowest quarter of the value range (up to 174–183 publications), so the distribution is heavily right-skewed and high scores are rare.
  • The final bar has no upper bound: it groups every scientist with 570 publications or more, 100 scientists in all (1% of the field).

Ned Kock 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 Ned Kock 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, 60 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: 60 D-Index — 82nd percentile

82% 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
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 60
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

Ned Kock D-index placement in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026 - data summary

  • The chart plots the discipline H-index (D-index) of all 7,777 Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026, grouped into 71 ranges running from 30 to 100+ D-Index.
  • Ned Kock, a Social Sciences and Humanities scholar from Texas A&M International University, records 60 D-Index - the 82nd percentile of the discipline.
  • 82% of ranked Social Sciences and Humanities scientists score the same or lower than Ned Kock, and about 18% score higher.
  • The median of the discipline falls in the 45 D-Index range, and Ned Kock ranks above the median.
  • The most crowded range is 42 D-Index, holding 313 scientists (4% of the field).
  • 59% of the field sits in the lowest quarter of the value range (up to 47 D-Index), so the distribution is heavily right-skewed and high scores are rare.
  • The final bar has no upper bound: it groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more, 97 scientists in all (1% of the field).

Overview

Ned Kock is affiliated with Texas A&M International University in the United States. Their research spans several academic fields, with a focus on Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science, Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, and Information Systems and Management. The scope of their work covers a diverse range of topics including Technology Adoption and User Behaviour, Knowledge Management and Sharing, Economic Growth and Development, Big Data and Business Intelligence, Blockchain Technology Applications and Security, Advanced Mathematical Theories and Applications, and International Business and Foreign Direct Investment.

They have authored several recent papers across various peer-reviewed journals and conferences. Notable publications include:

  • "Technology, innovation and SMEs' export intensity: Evidence from Morocco" (2023) in Technological Forecasting and Social Change
  • "The catalyzing role of customer pressure on environmental initiatives and export intensity: A study of family firms" (2023) in Journal of Business Research
  • "Contributing to the Success of PLS in SEM: An Action Research Perspective" (2023) in Communications of the Association for Information Systems
  • "Moderated mediation and J-curve emergence in path models: an information systems research perspective" (2021) in Journal of Systems and Information Technology
  • "Will PLS have to become factor-based to survive and thrive?" (2024) in European Journal of Information Systems

They frequently collaborate with several scholars including Augustine Tarkom, Mohamed Yacine Haddoud, Adah-Kole Emmanuel Onjewu, Prash Gopal, and Vahid Jafari-Sadeghi. These collaborations have contributed to multiple publications, reflecting a network of research partnerships.

Research dissemination primarily occurs through certain academic venues where several of their studies have appeared. These include:

  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • Technological Forecasting and Social Change
  • Journal of Systems and Information Technology
  • Journal of Business Research
  • Communications of the Association for Information Systems

Best Publications

  • Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach

    Ned Kock

  • Lateral Collinearity and Misleading Results in Variance-Based SEM: An Illustration and Recommendations

    Ned Kock;Gary S. Lynn

  • Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods

    Ned Kock;Pierre Hadaya

  • Principles of canonical action research

    Robert M. Davison;Maris G. Martinsons;Ned Kock

  • A Note on How to Conduct a Factor-Based PLS-SEM Analysis

    Ned Kock

  • The Psychobiological Model: Towards a New Theory of Computer-Mediated Communication Based on Darwinian Evolution

    Ned Kock

  • Advanced Mediating Effects Tests, Multi-Group Analyses, and Measurement Model Assessments in PLS-Based SEM

    Ned Kock

  • Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward E-communication tools

    N. Kock

  • Common Method Bias: A Full Collinearity Assessment Method for PLS-SEM

    Ned Kock

  • A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents' perceptions

    S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh;Mastura Jaafar;Ned Kock;T. Ramayah

  • Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective

    Darleen M. DeRosa;Donald A. Hantula;Ned Kock;John D'Arcy

  • Using WarpPLS in E-collaboration Studies: An Overview of Five Main Analysis Steps

    Ned Kock

  • Organizational members’ use of social networking sites and job performance

    Murad A. Moqbel;Saggi Nevo;Ned Kock

  • Unveiling the dark side of social networking sites: Personal and work-related consequences of social networking site addiction

    Murad A. Moqbel;Ned Kock

  • Using WarpPLS in e-Collaboration Studies: Mediating Effects, Control and Second Order Variables, and Algorithm Choices

    Ned Kock

  • Pain and Pleasure in Short Essay Writing: Factors Predicting University Students' Writing Anxiety and Writing Self‐Efficacy

    Christy Teranishi Martinez;Ned Kock;Jeffrey Cass

  • Using WarpPLS in e-Collaboration Studies: Descriptive Statistics, Settings, and Key Analysis Results

    Ned Kock

  • The three threats of action research: a discussion of methodological antidotes in the context of an information systems study

    Ned Kock

  • One-Tailed or Two-Tailed P Values in PLS-SEM?

    Ned Kock

  • The effects of community factors on residents’ perceptions toward World Heritage Site inscription and sustainable tourism development

    S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh;Mastura Jaafar;Ned Kock;A. Ghafar Ahmad

  • Encyclopedia of E-collaboration

    Ned Kock

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert M. Davison
Robert M. Davison City University of Hong Kong
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh Edith Cowan University
David E. Avison
David E. Avison École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales
Michael D. Myers
Michael D. Myers University of Auckland
Gary S. Lynn
Gary S. Lynn Stevens Institute of Technology
Craig Standing
Craig Standing Staffordshire University
Richard L. Baskerville
Richard L. Baskerville Georgia State University
David Roubaud
David Roubaud Montpellier Business School
Heinz K. Klein
Heinz K. Klein Binghamton University
Peter M. Todd
Peter M. Todd Indiana University

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

Studying Social Sciences and Humanities in the USA opens diverse career pathways, especially with the growing availability of flexible online degrees. Many students interested in psychology or counseling look into the best psyd programs to gain advanced clinical skills and become licensed psychologists. Another popular route is pursuing an MFT degree. The online masters mft programs offer training to become a marriage and family therapist, often with convenient and accelerated options.

For those looking for cost-effective options, getting a masters in psychology online can be a smart move. These programs cater to various specializations and budgets, making them accessible for many students. In addition, professionals aiming to work in education or organizational leadership can explore edd programs for advanced roles.

With online education, students have flexibility and a wide range of accredited pathways, making it easier to advance their careers or switch into new roles in the social sciences and humanities fields.

Best Scientists Citing Ned Kock

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles