World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Psychology
Austria
2026

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 63 3057 2814 11 10 271 24863

Claus Lamm publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Claus Lamm between 1998 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Claus Lamm published across 28 years, from 1998 to 2025, averaging 14.1 papers a year. Output peaked at 45 publications in 2021. 75 of the 396 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30 40
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1998 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 45. Peak 45 publications in 2021. 1998: 5 publications 1999: 2 publications 2000: 5 publications 2001: 11 publications 2002: 1 publication 2003: 3 publications 2004: 0 publications 2005: 1 publication 2006: 1 publication 2007: 6 publications 2008: 3 publications 2009: 3 publications 2010: 4 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 6 publications 2013: 12 publications 2014: 10 publications 2015: 27 publications 2016: 16 publications 2017: 16 publications 2018: 12 publications 2019: 20 publications 2020: 38 publications 2021: 45 publications 2022: 30 publications 2023: 40 publications 2024: 31 publications 2025: 44 publications
1998 2025

396 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Claus Lamm: publications per year, 1998 to 2025
Year Publications
1998 5
1999 2
2000 5
2001 11
2002 1
2003 3
2004 0
2005 1
2006 1
2007 6
2008 3
2009 3
2010 4
2011 4
2012 6
2013 12
2014 10
2015 27
2016 16
2017 16
2018 12
2019 20
2020 38
2021 45
2022 30
2023 40
2024 31
2025 44
Total 396
Download as CSV

Claus Lamm 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 Claus Lamm 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, 271–280 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: 271 publications — 84th percentile

84% 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
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
271–280 151 271
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

Claus Lamm 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 Claus Lamm 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, 62–63 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: 63 D-Index — 73rd percentile

73% 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
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 63
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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2026 - Research.com Psychology in Austria Leader Award
  • 2023 - Research.com Psychology in Austria Leader Award
  • 2022 - Research.com Psychology in Austria Leader Award

Overview

Claus Lamm is affiliated with the University of Vienna in Austria. Their research primarily spans the fields of neuroscience and psychology, with particular emphasis on cognitive neuroscience and social psychology. The scientist's work includes significant contributions to experimental and cognitive psychology, psychiatry and mental health, and clinical psychology.

The scope of Lamm's research covers a broad range of topics related to the neural and behavioral aspects of psychology, moral and emotional judgment, as well as action observation and synchronization. Their investigations further extend to pain management and the placebo effect, human-animal interaction studies, psychosomatic disorders and their treatments, and functional brain connectivity.

Frequent collaborators in Lamm's research include Markus Rütgen, Isabella C. Wagner, Giorgia Silani, Ronald Sladky, and Ludwig Huber. Together, these coauthors have contributed to various publications over years of collaboration.

Lamm's work has been published extensively in several scientific venues. The most frequent publication outlets include:

  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Nature Communications
  • NeuroImage
  • Scientific Reports
  • eLife

Among the recent papers associated with or relevant to the research area of Claus Lamm are:

  • "Resilience during uncertainty? Greater social connectedness during COVID-19 lockdown is associated with reduced distress and fatigue" (2020), published in British Journal of Health Psychology
  • "National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic" (2022), published in Nature Communications
  • "Meta-analysis of neural systems underlying placebo analgesia from individual participant fMRI data" (2021), published in Nature Communications
  • "Using reinforcement learning models in social neuroscience: frameworks, pitfalls and suggestions of best practices" (2020), published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
  • "A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic" (2021), published in Nature Human Behaviour

Best Publications

  • Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain

    Claus Lamm;Claus Lamm;Claus Lamm;Jean Decety;Tania Singer;Tania Singer

  • The social neuroscience of empathy

    Tania Singer;Claus Lamm

  • The Neural Substrate of Human Empathy: Effects of Perspective-taking and Cognitive Appraisal

    Claus Lamm;C. Daniel Batson;Jean Decety

  • Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience.

    Jean Decety;Claus Lamm

  • The Role of the Right Temporoparietal Junction in Social Interaction: How Low-Level Computational Processes Contribute to Meta-Cognition

    Jean Decety;Claus Lamm

  • Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams

    Rotem Botvinik-Nezer;Rotem Botvinik-Nezer;Felix Holzmeister;Colin F. Camerer;Anna Dreber;Anna Dreber

  • Functional Neural Plasticity and Associated Changes in Positive Affect After Compassion Training

    Olga M. Klimecki;Susanne Leiberg;Claus Lamm;Tania Singer;Tania Singer

  • The role of anterior insular cortex in social emotions

    Claus Lamm;Tania Singer

  • Right supramarginal gyrus is crucial to overcome emotional egocentricity bias in social judgments.

    Giorgia Silani;Giorgia Silani;Claus Lamm;Claus Lamm;Christian C. Ruff;Tania Singer;Tania Singer

  • What Are You Feeling? Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Assess the Modulation of Sensory and Affective Responses during Empathy for Pain

    Claus Lamm;Howard C. Nusbaum;Andrew N. Meltzoff;Jean Decety

  • How do we empathize with someone who is not like us? a functional magnetic resonance imaging study

    Claus Lamm;Andrew N. Meltzoff;Jean Decety

  • The role of shared neural activations, mirror neurons, and morality in empathy—A critical comment.

    Claus Lamm;Jasminka Majdandžić

  • Transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation (tES and TMS) for addiction medicine: A consensus paper on the present state of the science and the road ahead

    Hamed Ekhtiari;Hosna Tavakoli;Giovanni Addolorato;Chris Baeken

  • National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic

    Unknown

  • Empathy versus personal distress: Recent evidence from social neuroscience.

    Jean Decety;Claus Lamm

  • From shared to distinct self–other representations in empathy: evidence from neurotypical function and socio-cognitive disorders

    C. Lamm;H. Bukowski;G. Silani

  • Is stress affecting our ability to tune into others? Evidence for gender differences in the effects of stress on self-other distinction

    L. Tomova;B. von Dawans;M. Heinrichs;G. Silani

  • Placebo analgesia and its opioidergic regulation suggest that empathy for pain is grounded in self pain

    Markus Rütgen;Eva-Maria Seidel;Giorgia Silani;Giorgia Silani;Igor Riečanský;Igor Riečanský

  • Towards understanding rTMS mechanism of action: Stimulation of the DLPFC causes network-specific increase in functional connectivity.

    Martin Tik;André Hoffmann;Ronald Sladky;Livia Tomova

  • The role of emotions for moral judgments depends on the type of emotion and moral scenario.

    Giuseppe Ugazio;Claus Lamm;Claus Lamm;Tania Singer;Tania Singer

Frequent Co-Authors

Christian Windischberger
Christian Windischberger Medical University of Vienna
Giorgia Silani
Giorgia Silani University of Vienna
Ewald Moser
Ewald Moser Medical University of Vienna
Rupert Lanzenberger
Rupert Lanzenberger Medical University of Vienna
Tania Singer
Tania Singer Max Planck Society
Jean Decety
Jean Decety University of Chicago
Stefan Stieger
Stefan Stieger Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences
Andreas Hahn
Andreas Hahn University of Giessen
Bharat B. Biswal
Bharat B. Biswal New Jersey Institute of Technology
Predrag Petrovic
Predrag Petrovic Karolinska Institute

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 an online psychology degree in the USA opens doors to a variety of related fields and career pathways. Many prospective students are curious about the subtle differences in career focus, such as psychologist vs sociologist. Psychologists tend to focus on individual behavior and mental health, while sociologists examine group behavior and societal influences.

A common online pathway is counseling, which blends psychological insight with supportive guidance. Prospective students looking for program quality often investigate geographic hubs with strong reputations, such as the best college counseling programs in Baltimore. Boston is another key location, recognized for its academic excellence—learn more about the best counseling degree programs in Boston. For those interested in studying or working on the West Coast, it's helpful to research the top counseling degree programs in California as well.

Whether your interests lie in clinical psychology, counseling, or social research, online degrees in these fields are a flexible, accessible route to impactful and rewarding careers.

Best Scientists Citing Claus Lamm

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles