World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 35 9926 9292 567 553 99 4560

Ben Colagiuri publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Ben Colagiuri between 2008 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Ben Colagiuri published across 18 years, from 2008 to 2025, averaging 7.9 papers a year. Output peaked at 17 publications in 2022. 17 of the 142 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2008 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 17. Peak 17 publications in 2022. 2008: 1 publication 2009: 1 publication 2010: 6 publications 2011: 7 publications 2012: 7 publications 2013: 10 publications 2014: 2 publications 2015: 9 publications 2016: 8 publications 2017: 7 publications 2018: 6 publications 2019: 12 publications 2020: 1 publication 2021: 16 publications 2022: 17 publications 2023: 15 publications 2024: 9 publications 2025: 8 publications
2008 2025

142 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Ben Colagiuri: publications per year, 2008 to 2025
Year Publications
2008 1
2009 1
2010 6
2011 7
2012 7
2013 10
2014 2
2015 9
2016 8
2017 7
2018 6
2019 12
2020 1
2021 16
2022 17
2023 15
2024 9
2025 8
Total 142
Download as CSV

Ben Colagiuri publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Ben Colagiuri sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 69 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 31–40 to 705+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 736. Most scientists, 736, have 101–110 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 91–100 publications, is where this scientist sits. 31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31–40 publications 705+

This scientist: 99 publications — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
31–40 6
41–50 52
51–60 138
61–70 299
71–80 461
81–90 605
91–100 713 99
101–110 736
111–120 686
121–130 670
131–140 644
141–150 597
151–160 576
161–170 477
171–180 450
181–190 397
191–200 343
201–210 328
211–220 313
221–230 283
231–240 226
241–250 196
251–260 201
261–270 171
271–280 151
281–290 139
291–300 113
301–310 102
311–320 100
321–330 76
331–340 92
341–350 85
351–360 69
361–370 71
371–380 63
381–390 58
391–400 57
401–410 43
411–420 33
421–430 50
431–440 41
441–450 32
451–460 27
461–470 28
471–480 25
481–490 28
491–500 20
501–510 23
511–520 26
521–530 17
531–540 21
541–550 14
551–560 16
561–570 10
571–580 22
581–590 9
591–600 14
601–610 9
611–620 11
621–630 4
631–640 7
641–650 5
651–660 10
661–670 8
671–680 8
681–690 4
691–700 3
701–704 4
705+ 100
Download as CSV

Ben Colagiuri D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Ben Colagiuri sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 58 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 144+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 702. Most scientists, 702, have 32–33 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 34–35 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30–31 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 35 D-Index — 16th percentile

16% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 398
32–33 702
34–35 671 35
36–37 659
38–39 641
40–41 671
42–43 617
44–45 558
46–47 495
48–49 487
50–51 445
52–53 390
54–55 408
56–57 345
58–59 325
60–61 321
62–63 248
64–65 290
66–67 218
68–69 219
70–71 215
72–73 183
74–75 169
76–77 132
78–79 137
80–81 120
82–83 112
84–85 86
86–87 101
88–89 83
90–91 77
92–93 70
94–95 78
96–97 58
98–99 53
100–101 57
102–103 48
104–105 53
106–107 46
108–109 24
110–111 35
112–113 27
114–115 32
116–117 31
118–119 22
120–121 16
122–123 24
124–125 18
126–127 11
128–129 19
130–131 10
132–133 16
134–135 10
136–137 12
138–139 8
140–141 5
142–143 12
144+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Ben Colagiuri is affiliated with the University of Sydney in Australia. Their research primarily spans the fields of Medicine and Neuroscience, with notable contributions to subfields such as Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Mental Health, Pharmacology, Clinical Psychology, and Health.

The main topics addressed in their work include:

  • Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Empathy and Medical Education
  • Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Musculoskeletal Pain and Rehabilitation
  • Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Ben Colagiuri has published multiple papers in prominent venues, frequently contributing to:

  • Pain
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine
  • Journal of Pain
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
  • JAMA Psychiatry

Recent papers featuring related research topics include:

  • "What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus," 2020, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
  • "Affect and Emotions in Placebo and Nocebo Effects: What Do We Know So Far?," 2020, Social and Personality Psychology Compass
  • "Psychosocial Factors Predict COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects," 2021, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
  • "The Relationship Between Expectancy, Anxiety, and the Nocebo Effect: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Recommendations for Future Research," 2022, Health Psychology Review
  • "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Success of Blinding in Antidepressant RCTs," 2021, Psychiatry Research

Frequent collaborators in their research include:

  • Louise Sharpe
  • Kirsten Barnes
  • Andrew L. Geers
  • Kate Faasse
  • Evan J. Livesey

Best Publications

  • Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus.

    Andrea W M Evers;Luana Colloca;Charlotte Blease;Marco Annoni

  • The placebo effect: From concepts to genes.

    Ben Colagiuri;Lieven A Schenk;Michael D Kessler;Susan D Dorsey

  • Effect of an office worksite-based yoga program on heart rate variability: outcomes of a randomized controlled trial

    Birinder S Cheema;Angelique Houridis;Lisa Busch;Verena Raschke-Cheema

  • International randomized-controlled trial of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in depression.

    Colleen K. Loo;Mustafa M. Husain;William M. McDonald;Scott Aaronson

  • Towards a new model of attentional biases in the development, maintenance, and management of pain.

    Jemma Todd;Louise Sharpe;Ameika Johnson;Kathryn Nicholson Perry

  • A Systematic Review of the Effect of Expectancy on Treatment Responses to Acupuncture

    Ben Colagiuri;Caroline A. Smith

  • Fifteen Minutes of Chair-Based Yoga Postures or Guided Meditation Performed in the Office Can Elicit a Relaxation Response

    Geoffrey W Melville;Dennis Hsu-Tung Chang;Ben Colagiuri;Paul W. M Marshall

  • Prevalence and Predictors of Sleep Difficulty in a National Cohort of Women with Primary Breast Cancer Three to Four Months Postsurgery

    Ben Colagiuri;Ben Colagiuri;Søren Christensen;Anders B. Jensen;Anders B. Jensen;Melanie A. Price

  • Partial reinforcement, extinction, and placebo analgesia

    Siu Tsin Au Yeung;Ben Colagiuri;Ben Colagiuri;Peter F. Lovibond;Luana Colloca

  • Patient expectancy and post-chemotherapy nausea: a meta-analysis.

    Ben Colagiuri;Robert Zachariae

  • Can Positive Framing Reduce Nocebo Side Effects? Current Evidence and Recommendation for Future Research.

    Kirsten Barnes;Kate Faasse;Andrew L. Geers;Suzanne G. Helfer

  • How food cues can enhance and inhibit motivation to obtain and consume food.

    Ben Colagiuri;Ben Colagiuri;Peter F. Lovibond

  • Contextual cuing as a form of nonconscious learning: Theoretical and empirical analysis in large and very large samples.

    Ben Colagiuri;Ben Colagiuri;E J Livesey

  • What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus.

    Andrea W M Evers;Andrea W M Evers;Luana Colloca;Charlotte Blease;Jens Gaab

  • Autonomic Arousal as a Mechanism of the Persistence of Nocebo Hyperalgesia.

    Ben Colagiuri;Veronica F. Quinn

  • Can expectancies produce placebo effects for implicit learning

    Ben Colagiuri;Ben Colagiuri;Evan J. Livesey;Justin A. Harris

  • Does assessing patients' expectancies about chemotherapy side effects influence their occurrence?

    Ben Colagiuri;Ben Colagiuri;Haryana Dhillon;Phyllis N. Butow;Jesse Jansen

  • A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo versus no treatment for insomnia symptoms

    Valerie Yeung;Louise Sharpe;Nick Glozier;Maree L. Hackett;Maree L. Hackett

  • The Influence of Side Effect Information Framing on Nocebo Effects.

    Kate Faasse;Anna Huynh;Sarah Pearson;Andrew L Geers

  • Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-Directed Action by Reward Cues

    Peter F. Lovibond;Ben Colagiuri

  • Warning about side effects can increase their occurrence: an experimental model using placebo treatment for sleep difficulty:

    Ben Colagiuri;Ben Colagiuri;Kari McGuinness;Robert A Boakes;Phyllis N Butow

Frequent Co-Authors

Louise Sharpe
Louise Sharpe University of Sydney
Andrew L. Geers
Andrew L. Geers University of Toledo
Robert A. Boakes
Robert A. Boakes University of Sydney
Peter F. Lovibond
Peter F. Lovibond University of New South Wales
Phyllis Butow
Phyllis Butow University of Sydney
Jens Gaab
Jens Gaab University of Basel
Fabrizio Benedetti
Fabrizio Benedetti University of Turin
Robert Zachariae
Robert Zachariae Aarhus University Hospital
Irving Kirsch
Irving Kirsch Harvard University
Winfried Rief
Winfried Rief Philipp University of Marburg

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 psychology degrees opens up a variety of rewarding career paths. One growing area is substance abuse counseling, which offers opportunities to make a direct impact in communities across the USA. Each state and city can have unique educational and licensing requirements for these roles.

For example, if you're interested in becoming a substance abuse counselor in Chesapeake, it's essential to understand both local and state requirements. Similarly, Chicago substance abuse counselors education requirements may differ from those in other areas, often requiring specific certifications or clinical hours.

Job seekers in California can benefit from resources detailing the process of becoming a substance abuse counselor in Chula Vista. Meanwhile, students considering Ohio can review guides like how to become a substance abuse counselor in Cincinnati for region-specific advice.

Pursuing a psychology degree online allows flexibility while preparing for specialized roles in counseling and mental health services. Understanding these pathways and local qualifications will help you plan your educational journey and advance your career in the field.

Best Scientists Citing Ben Colagiuri

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles