The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal
Impact in
Classified as
- Journal
- Journal of Sleep Research
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12371 →Countries where authors are citing The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal
This map shows the geographic impact of The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal. 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 two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal
This network shows the impact of The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal.
About The two‐process model of sleep regulation: a reappraisal
This paper, published in 2016, received 1.1k indexed citations . Written by Alexander A. Borbély, Serge Daan, Anna Wirz‐Justice and Tom DeBoer covering the research area of Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology and Endocrine and Autonomic Systems. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Cognitive Neuroscience (585 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (577 citations), Endocrine and Autonomic Systems (496 citations), Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (110 citations) and Physiology (105 citations). Published in Journal of Sleep 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/10.1111/jsr.12371.