Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w54332809 →Countries where authors are citing Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account
This map shows the geographic impact of Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. 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 Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account
This network shows the impact of Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account.
About Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account
This paper, published in 1989, received 546 indexed citations . Written by Henry L. Roediger, Mary Susan Weldon and Bradford H. Challis. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Cognitive Neuroscience (487 citations), Developmental and Educational Psychology (203 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (113 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/w54332809.