From eye movements to actions: how batsmen hit the ball
★★★½☆ 3.5 — Peer reviewed, Nature Neuroscience
★★★½☆ 3.5 / 5 — Peer reviewed, Nature Neuroscience
Michael Francis Land and Peter McLeod · 2000 · Nature Neuroscience · article
Why this rating
- Evidence class: article (3.00)
- Cited 4.0x the field average (+0.25)
- Top 10% most-cited in its field (+0.50)
The rubric starts from what kind of study this is and lets citation data adjust it, never the other way round. Five stars is reachable by a well-regarded evidence synthesis and not by a single paper, however famous. Scores round down.
How the field treats it
725 citations recorded.
Field-weighted citation impact: 4.03. This is the count normalised against papers of the same age in the same field, where 1.00 is exactly average — it is the number worth reading, because a raw count means something different in oncology than in topology.
In the top 10% most-cited work in its field.
What stands against it
No retraction, correction or expression of concern on record.
No published comment, reply or rebuttal naming it was found among the works that cite it.
Data-integrity concerns often surface first on PubPeer, which cannot be read automatically: see its discussion there.
Notices from Crossref, which carries the Retraction Watch database; replies from OpenAlex.
Read it
This rates the paper, not the claim. A strong paper can still be irrelevant to, or misquoted by, the post that cited it. The stars say how much weight the study can bear — not whether it says what someone claimed it says.
Rubric v1.0 · data from OpenAlex, retrieved 18 Oct 2026