Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- Peter Lang
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w3314133 →Countries where authors are citing Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings
This map shows the geographic impact of Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. 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 Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings
This network shows the impact of Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings.
About Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings
This paper, published in 1999, received 904 indexed citations . Written by Peter Lang covering the research area of General Health Professions and Philosophy. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Artificial Intelligence (310 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (300 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (288 citations), Social Psychology (245 citations) and Sociology and Political Science (98 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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w3314133.