Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R).
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w56244818 →Countries where authors are citing Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R).
This map shows the geographic impact of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R).. 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 Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R). with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R). more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R).
This network shows the impact of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R).. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R)..
About Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Review and Revision (CESD and CESD-R).
This paper, published in 2004, received 561 indexed citations . Written by William W. Eaton, Corey Smith, Michele L. Ybarra, Carles Muntañer and Allen Y. Tien. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Clinical Psychology (251 citations), Social Psychology (139 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (123 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/w56244818.