The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy
- Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
- Complementary and alternative medicine
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Journal
- The Journal of Physiology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1113/jp279963 →Countries where authors are citing The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy
This map shows the geographic impact of The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy. 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 The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy
This network shows the impact of The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy.
About The anaerobic threshold: 50+ years of controversy
This paper, published in 2020, received 188 indexed citations . Written by David C. Poole, Harry B. Rossiter, George A. Brooks and L. Bruce Gladden covering the research area of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Complementary and alternative medicine and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Complementary and alternative medicine (121 citations), Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (89 citations) and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (68 citations). Published in The Journal of Physiology.
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/10.1113/jp279963.