World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
53
Citations
20897
World Ranking
2227
National Ranking
1074

Andrew J. Flanagin publication distribution in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Andrew J. Flanagin sits on this spectrum.

44–53 publications: 28 scientists 54–63 publications: 61 scientists 64–73 publications: 161 scientists 74–83 publications: 225 scientists 84–93 publications: 301 scientists 94–103 publications: 390 scientists 104–113 publications: 406 scientists 114–123 publications: 474 scientists 124–133 publications: 453 scientists 134–143 publications: 434 scientists 144–153 publications: 407 scientists 154–163 publications: 411 scientists 164–173 publications: 391 scientists 174–183 publications: 313 scientists 184–193 publications: 319 scientists 194–203 publications: 304 scientists 204–213 publications: 285 scientists 214–223 publications: 246 scientists 224–233 publications: 213 scientists 234–243 publications: 170 scientists 244–253 publications: 167 scientists 254–263 publications: 162 scientists 264–273 publications: 138 scientists 274–283 publications: 138 scientists 284–293 publications: 113 scientists 294–303 publications: 106 scientists 304–313 publications: 95 scientists 314–323 publications: 101 scientists 324–333 publications: 81 scientists 334–343 publications: 69 scientists 344–353 publications: 56 scientists 354–363 publications: 36 scientists 364–373 publications: 42 scientists 374–383 publications: 41 scientists 384–393 publications: 44 scientists 394–403 publications: 27 scientists 404–413 publications: 30 scientists 414–423 publications: 20 scientists 424–433 publications: 29 scientists 434–443 publications: 29 scientists 444–453 publications: 25 scientists 454–463 publications: 19 scientists 464–473 publications: 21 scientists 474–483 publications: 11 scientists 484–493 publications: 17 scientists 494–503 publications: 7 scientists 504–513 publications: 6 scientists 514–523 publications: 12 scientists 524–533 publications: 10 scientists 534–543 publications: 7 scientists 544–553 publications: 6 scientists 554–563 publications: 12 scientists 564–569 publications: 8 scientists 570+ publications: 100 scientists
44 publications 570+

This scientist: 109 publications — 18th percentile

18% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more.

Andrew J. Flanagin D-index placement in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Andrew J. Flanagin sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 177 scientists 31 D-Index: 210 scientists 32 D-Index: 222 scientists 33 D-Index: 188 scientists 34 D-Index: 181 scientists 35 D-Index: 243 scientists 36 D-Index: 261 scientists 37 D-Index: 272 scientists 38 D-Index: 278 scientists 39 D-Index: 300 scientists 40 D-Index: 297 scientists 41 D-Index: 308 scientists 42 D-Index: 313 scientists 43 D-Index: 300 scientists 44 D-Index: 269 scientists 45 D-Index: 260 scientists 46 D-Index: 228 scientists 47 D-Index: 251 scientists 48 D-Index: 203 scientists 49 D-Index: 186 scientists 50 D-Index: 187 scientists 51 D-Index: 166 scientists 52 D-Index: 138 scientists 53 D-Index: 141 scientists 54 D-Index: 131 scientists 55 D-Index: 137 scientists 56 D-Index: 109 scientists 57 D-Index: 129 scientists 58 D-Index: 95 scientists 59 D-Index: 105 scientists 60 D-Index: 106 scientists 61 D-Index: 86 scientists 62 D-Index: 94 scientists 63 D-Index: 77 scientists 64 D-Index: 79 scientists 65 D-Index: 59 scientists 66 D-Index: 68 scientists 67 D-Index: 51 scientists 68 D-Index: 49 scientists 69 D-Index: 40 scientists 70 D-Index: 43 scientists 71 D-Index: 40 scientists 72 D-Index: 50 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 43 scientists 75 D-Index: 45 scientists 76 D-Index: 45 scientists 77 D-Index: 30 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 31 scientists 80 D-Index: 29 scientists 81 D-Index: 18 scientists 82 D-Index: 21 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 15 scientists 85 D-Index: 15 scientists 86 D-Index: 19 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 12 scientists 89 D-Index: 7 scientists 90 D-Index: 19 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 13 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 13 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 7 scientists 97 D-Index: 6 scientists 98 D-Index: 6 scientists 99 D-Index: 6 scientists 100+ D-Index: 97 scientists
30 D-Index 100+

This scientist: 53 D-Index — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more.

Overview

Andrew J. Flanagin is affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara in the United States. Their research primarily spans the field of Social Sciences, with a focus on subfields such as Sociology and Political Science, Communication, Artificial Intelligence, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, and Cognitive Neuroscience.

The main topics addressed in their work include:

  • Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Media and Politics
  • Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Topic Modeling

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Flanagin include:

  • Individual Inferences in Web-Based Information Environments: How Cognitive Processing Fluency, Information Access, Active Search Behaviors, and Task Competency Affect Metacognitive and Task Judgments (2022), published in Media Psychology
  • Tackling misinformation: What researchers could do with social media data (2020), published in Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review
  • From Dark to Light: The Many Shades of Sharing Misinformation Online (2021), published in Media and Communication
  • Modeling and Measuring Expressed (Dis)belief in (Mis)information (2020), published in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
  • Toxic positivity on social media: The drawbacks and benefits of sharing positive (but potentially platitudinous) messages online (2023), published in New Media & Society

Flanagin frequently collaborates with a group of scholars including Miriam J. Metzger, Zijian Lew, Shan Jiang, Christo Wilson, and Irene V. Pasquetto. These collaborations appear across multiple papers, contributing to various aspects of misinformation, social media studies, and communication.

Their work has been published in several venues such as:

  • New Media & Society
  • Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review
  • Media and Communication
  • Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
  • Media Psychology

Flanagin's research covers the analysis of misinformation and its societal impacts, the role of social media in political contexts, and the detection of harmful online behavior such as hate speech and cyberbullying. The interdisciplinary approach incorporates aspects of artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience, addressing how technology influences individuals and information environments.

Best Publications

  • Perceptions of internet information credibility

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger

  • Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online

    Miriam J. Metzger;Andrew J. Flanagin;Ryan B. Medders

  • Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment

    Miriam J. Metzger;Andrew J. Flanagin;Keren Eyal;Daisy R. Lemus

  • Internet use in the contemporary media environment.

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger

  • Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics

    Miriam J. Metzger;Andrew J. Flanagin

  • The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger

  • Reconceptualizing Collective Action in the Contemporary Media Environment

    Bruce Bimber;Andrew J. Flanagin;Cynthia Stohl

  • The credibility of volunteered geographic information

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger

  • College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior

    Miriam J. Metzger;Andrew J. Flanagin;Lara Zwarun

  • Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change

    Bruce A. Bimber;Andrew J. Flanagin;Cynthia Stohl

  • Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages

    Patrick B. O’Sullivan;Andrew J. Flanagin

  • Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility

    Miriam J. Metzger;Andrew J. Flanagin

  • Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger

  • Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive Communication Systems

    Janet Fulk;Andrew J. Flanagin;Michael E. Kalman;Peter R. Monge

  • Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems

    Peter R. Monge;Janet Fulk;Michael E. Kalman;Andrew J. Flanagin

  • Modeling the Structure of Collective Action

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Cynthia Stohl;Bruce Bimber

  • Mitigating risk in ecommerce transactions: perceptions of information credibility and the role of user-generated ratings in product quality and purchase intention

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger;Rebekah Pure;Alex Markov

  • Trusting expert- versus user-generated ratings online: The role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger

  • The perceived credibility of personal Web page information as influenced by the sex of the source

    Andrew J Flanagin;Miriam J Metzger

  • Collective Action in Organizations: Contents

    Unknown

  • behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification

    Andrew J. Flanagin;Miriam J. Metzger

Frequent Co-Authors

Miriam J. Metzger
Miriam J. Metzger University of California, Santa Barbara
Bruce Bimber
Bruce Bimber University of California, Santa Barbara
Cynthia Stohl
Cynthia Stohl University of California, Santa Barbara
Janet Fulk
Janet Fulk University of Southern California
Peter R. Monge
Peter R. Monge University of Southern California
David R. Seibold
David R. Seibold University of California, Santa Barbara
Christo Wilson
Christo Wilson Northeastern University
Stephan Lewandowsky
Stephan Lewandowsky University of Bristol
David G. Rand
David G. Rand Cornell University
Bassam Bamieh
Bassam Bamieh University of California, Santa Barbara

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring online degrees in Social Sciences and Humanities opens a range of career options—from counseling and education to public policy and research roles. Accreditation, program flexibility, and affordability are key considerations for prospective students. For example, students often compare how much is a masters in psychology to determine the best value for their investment.

Accelerated learning formats have gained popularity, with many institutions offering 2 year ed.d programs online. These programs help working professionals advance their academic credentials and move into leadership roles more quickly.

There are also abundant online masters programs in fields like sociology, anthropology, and education, designed to be completed in as little as one year. Additionally, online accelerated bachelor degree programs let students fast-track their undergraduate studies and begin their careers sooner.

Choosing the right online degree pathway can be a strategic move for those seeking flexibility, affordability, or a quicker route to employment in Social Sciences and Humanities fields.

Best Scientists Citing Andrew J. Flanagin

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles