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
Social Sciences and Humanities 53 2209 2010 88 83 186 36103

Daniel Lakens publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Daniel Lakens between 2005 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Daniel Lakens published across 21 years, from 2005 to 2025, averaging 13.2 papers a year. Output peaked at 33 publications in 2025. 53 of the 277 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2005 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 33. Peak 33 publications in 2025. 2005: 1 publication 2006: 0 publications 2007: 0 publications 2008: 0 publications 2009: 1 publication 2010: 2 publications 2011: 9 publications 2012: 16 publications 2013: 12 publications 2014: 15 publications 2015: 14 publications 2016: 18 publications 2017: 13 publications 2018: 28 publications 2019: 16 publications 2020: 14 publications 2021: 28 publications 2022: 20 publications 2023: 17 publications 2024: 20 publications 2025: 33 publications
2005 2025

277 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Daniel Lakens: publications per year, 2005 to 2025
Year Publications
2005 1
2006 0
2007 0
2008 0
2009 1
2010 2
2011 9
2012 16
2013 12
2014 15
2015 14
2016 18
2017 13
2018 28
2019 16
2020 14
2021 28
2022 20
2023 17
2024 20
2025 33
Total 277
Download as CSV

Daniel Lakens 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 Daniel Lakens sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400
Bar chart with 54 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 44–53 to 570+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 474. Most scientists, 474, have 114–123 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 184–193 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
44–53 publications 570+

This scientist: 186 publications — 58th percentile

58% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
44–53 28
54–63 61
64–73 161
74–83 225
84–93 301
94–103 390
104–113 406
114–123 474
124–133 453
134–143 434
144–153 407
154–163 411
164–173 391
174–183 313
184–193 319 186
194–203 304
204–213 285
214–223 246
224–233 213
234–243 170
244–253 167
254–263 162
264–273 138
274–283 138
284–293 113
294–303 106
304–313 95
314–323 101
324–333 81
334–343 69
344–353 56
354–363 36
364–373 42
374–383 41
384–393 44
394–403 27
404–413 30
414–423 20
424–433 29
434–443 29
444–453 25
454–463 19
464–473 21
474–483 11
484–493 17
494–503 7
504–513 6
514–523 12
524–533 10
534–543 7
544–553 6
554–563 12
564–569 8
570+ 100
Download as CSV

Daniel Lakens 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 Daniel Lakens sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300
Bar chart with 71 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 100+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 313. Most scientists, 313, have 42 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 53 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 177
31 210
32 222
33 188
34 181
35 243
36 261
37 272
38 278
39 300
40 297
41 308
42 313
43 300
44 269
45 260
46 228
47 251
48 203
49 186
50 187
51 166
52 138
53 141 53
54 131
55 137
56 109
57 129
58 95
59 105
60 106
61 86
62 94
63 77
64 79
65 59
66 68
67 51
68 49
69 40
70 43
71 40
72 50
73 46
74 43
75 45
76 45
77 30
78 25
79 31
80 29
81 18
82 21
83 26
84 15
85 15
86 19
87 19
88 12
89 7
90 19
91 20
92 13
93 9
94 13
95 8
96 7
97 6
98 6
99 6
100+ 97
Download as CSV

Overview

Daniel Lakens is affiliated with Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands. Their research spans multiple areas within psychology and decision sciences, focusing extensively on statistical methodologies and applied psychological practices.

The scientist has a substantial number of publications in fields including psychology and decision sciences. More specifically, their work covers:

  • Psychology
  • Decision Sciences

Within these disciplines, Lakens has contributed to several subfields. These include:

  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
  • Statistics and Probability
  • Applied Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Social Psychology

Their main research topics focus on:

  • Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Mental Health Research Topics
  • Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Cultural Differences and Values
  • Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Among recent papers by Daniel Lakens are the following:

  • "Sample Size Justification," 2022, published in Collabra Psychology
  • "Simulation-Based Power Analysis for Factorial Analysis of Variance Designs," 2021, published in Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
  • "An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports," 2021, published in Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
  • "Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses," 2020, published in Perspectives on Psychological Science
  • "Using anchor-based methods to determine the smallest effect size of interest," 2021, published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Daniel Lakens frequently collaborates with several researchers, including:

  • Chao Zhang
  • Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn
  • Cristian Mesquida
  • Peder Mortvedt Isager
  • Arlette van Wissen

Publications by this scientist appear regularly in well-established venues such as:

  • Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science
  • Meta-Psychology
  • PLoS ONE
  • International Review of Social Psychology

Best Publications

  • Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs

    D Daniël Lakens

  • Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

    Alexander A. Aarts;Joanna E. Anderson;Christopher J. Anderson;Peter R. Attridge;Peter R. Attridge

  • Equivalence tests : a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses

    D Daniël Lakens

  • Equivalence Testing for Psychological Research: A Tutorial

    Daniël Lakens;Anne M. Scheel;Peder M. Isager

  • Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

    Richard A. Klein;Michelangelo Vianello;Fred Hasselman;Byron G. Adams

  • Why psychologists should by default use Welch's t-test instead of student's t-test

    Marie Delacre;Daniël Lakens;Christophe Leys

  • Registered Reports A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results

    Brian A. Nosek;Daniël Lakens

  • An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science

    D Daniël Lakens

  • Weight as an Embodiment of Importance

    Nils B Jostmann;D Daniël Lakens;Thomas W Schubert

  • Justify your alpha

    Daniel Lakens;Federico G. Adolfi;Federico G. Adolfi;Casper J. Albers;Farid Anvari

  • Performing High-Powered Studies Efficiently With Sequential Analyses

    D Daniël Lakens

  • Simulation-Based Power Analysis for Factorial Analysis of Variance Designs:

    Daniël Lakens;Aaron R. Caldwell;Aaron R. Caldwell

  • An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard Psychology literature with Registered Reports

    Anne M. Scheel;Mitchell R. M. J. Schijen;Daniël Lakens

  • When power analyses based on pilot data are biased: Inaccurate effect size estimators and follow-up bias

    Casper Albers;D Daniël Lakens

  • If They Move in Sync, They Must Feel in Sync: Movement Synchrony Leads to Attributions of Rapport and Entitativity

    Daniël Lakens;Mariëlle Stel

  • Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses.

    Anne M Scheel;Leonid Tiokhin;Peder M Isager;Daniël Lakens

  • Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science.

    Sander L. Koole;Daniël Lakens

  • How to classify, detect, and manage univariate and multivariate outliers, with emphasis on pre-registration

    Christophe Leys;Marie Delacre;Youri L. Mora;Daniël Lakens

  • Improving Inferences about Null Effects with Bayes Factors and Equivalence Tests

    Daniël Lakens;Neil Marvin McLatchie;Peder M. Isager;Anne M. Scheel

  • Sailing From the Seas of Chaos Into the Corridor of Stability: Practical Recommendations to Increase the Informational Value of Studies

    Daniël Lakens;Ellen R. K. Evers

  • The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review

    Richard D. Morey;Christopher D. Chambers;Peter J. Etchells;Christine R. Harris

  • Sample Size Justification

    Lakens D

Frequent Co-Authors

WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn
WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn Eindhoven University of Technology
Brian A. Nosek
Brian A. Nosek Center for Open Science
Gün R. Semin
Gün R. Semin ISPA - University Institute of Psychological, Social and Life Sciences
Lisa M. DeBruine
Lisa M. DeBruine University of Glasgow
Richard D. Morey
Richard D. Morey Cardiff University
Sander L. Koole
Sander L. Koole Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Thomas W. Schubert
Thomas W. Schubert University of Oslo
Mark J. Brandt
Mark J. Brandt Michigan State University
Rolf A. Zwaan
Rolf A. Zwaan Erasmus University Rotterdam
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers University of Amsterdam

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 a career in Social Sciences and Humanities opens the door to a variety of professional pathways, especially with the increasing availability of online and accelerated programs. For those interested in social work, msw accelerated programs offer a faster route to earning a Master of Social Work and starting a meaningful career in social services.

If psychology is your focus, consider an accelerated online bachelor's degree in psychology. These programs are designed for students eager to engage with mental health, research, or human behavior fields while balancing other commitments.

Aspiring counselors can benefit from choosing cacrep schools, which ensure high academic and professional standards. CACREP accreditation is often preferred or required by employers and licensure boards.

Another rewarding pathway is family therapy. mft programs provide specialized training in supporting couples and families, and many offer the flexibility and affordability of online learning.

These online options make it easier than ever to pursue careers in the Social Sciences and Humanities, no matter where you’re located.

Best Scientists Citing Daniel Lakens

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles