Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD RESEARCH

Scovel, Thomas·2000·Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

Abstract

Two decades of international research in applied linguistics provides a large number and variety of topics from which to choose for this special anniversary edition, but certainly one of the most significant among these choices is the critical period hypothesis (CPH). Few topics in applied linguistics have continued to captivate the interests of researchers and practitioners so intensively and for such a long period of time as the CPH. Indeed, one could easily go back to reviewing three, not two decades of sustained research and continuous interest in this topic (Lenneberg 1967, Scovel 1969). If number and diversity of publications is indicative, the CPH has engendered even more interest and controversy now than in any previous decade. Why is this so?

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0267190500200135

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Scovel, T.
Venue
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Published
2000-01
Volume
20
Pages
213-223
ISSN
  • 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6356
OpenAlex
W2145120582
Cited by
271
References
3
FWCI
38.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.