The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
Impact in
- Education 289
Classified as
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x →Countries where authors are citing The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
This map shows the geographic impact of The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics. 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 Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
This network shows the impact of The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.
About The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
This paper, published in 2007, received 826 indexed citations . Written by Diane F. Halpern, Camilla Persson Benbow, David C. Geary, Ruben C. Gur, Janet Shibley Hyde and Morton Ann Gernsbacher covering the research area of Experimental and Cognitive Psychology and Safety Research. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (331 citations), Education (289 citations), Safety Research (150 citations), Developmental and Educational Psychology (134 citations) and Gender Studies (129 citations). Published in PubMed.
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/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x.