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.
Practice Parameters for the Role of Actigraphy in the Study of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms: An Update for 2002
2003533 citationsMichael R. Littner, Clete A. Kushida et al.SLEEPprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Stephen Johnson
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Stephen Johnson'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 Stephen Johnson with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Stephen Johnson more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Stephen Johnson. 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 Stephen Johnson. The network helps show where Stephen Johnson may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Stephen Johnson
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Stephen Johnson.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Stephen Johnson 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 Stephen Johnson. Stephen Johnson is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Johnson, Stephen, et al.. (2016). Collaborating to embed the teaching and assessment of literacy in Education: A targeted unit approach. Murdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University). 10(2).1 indexed citations
2.
Johnson, Stephen. (2013). Teaching for Tomorrow: Utilizing Technology to Implement the Reforms of MacCrate, Carnegie , and Best Practices. Nebraska law review. 92(1). 3.2 indexed citations
Littner, Michael R., Clete A. Kushida, William M. Anderson, et al.. (2003). Practice Parameters for the Role of Actigraphy in the Study of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms: An Update for 2002. SLEEP. 26(3). 337–341.533 indexed citations breakdown →
Littner, Michael R., Max Hirshkowitz, Milton Kramer, et al.. (2003). An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Report Standards of Practice Committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.3 indexed citations
Chesson, Andrew L., Kristyna M. Hartse, William Anderson, et al.. (2000). Practice parameters for the evaluation of chronic insomnia. An American Academy of Sleep Medicine report. Standards of Practice Committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.. PubMed. 23(2). 237–41.154 indexed citations
Johnson, Stephen, et al.. (1988). Levels of Moral Judgment of Faculty and Students in a Teacher Education Program: A Micro Study of an Institution.. Teacher education quarterly (Claremont, Calif.). 15(1). 61–70.21 indexed citations
Carmody, Raymond F., David Rickles, & Stephen Johnson. (1983). Giant Cell Tumor of the Sphenoid Bone. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 7(2). 370–373.21 indexed citations
Johnson, Stephen, David S. Schade, & Glenn T. Peake. (1977). Chlorpropamide-induced hypoglycemia. The American Journal of Medicine. 63(5). 799–804.28 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.