Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis
- Authors
- Geoff Cumming
- Journal
- CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w46983326 →Countries where authors are citing Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis
This map shows the geographic impact of Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis. 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 Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis
This network shows the impact of Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis.
About Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis
This paper, published in 2011, received 1.5k indexed citations . Written by Geoff Cumming. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Cognitive Neuroscience (379 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (315 citations) and Social Psychology (221 citations). Published in CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research).
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/w46983326.