World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Emily E. Tanner-Smith

Emily E. Tanner-Smith

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 42 7472 6967 4037 3668 129 8971

Emily E. Tanner-Smith publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Emily E. Tanner-Smith between 2006 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Emily E. Tanner-Smith published across 21 years, from 2006 to 2026, averaging 7.8 papers a year. Output peaked at 18 publications in 2016. 11 of the 163 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2006 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 18. Peak 18 publications in 2016. 2006: 4 publications 2007: 2 publications 2008: 2 publications 2009: 2 publications 2010: 4 publications 2011: 1 publication 2012: 3 publications 2013: 9 publications 2014: 9 publications 2015: 12 publications 2016: 18 publications 2017: 13 publications 2018: 11 publications 2019: 13 publications 2020: 3 publications 2021: 14 publications 2022: 13 publications 2023: 12 publications 2024: 7 publications 2025: 10 publications 2026: 1 publication
2006 2026

163 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Emily E. Tanner-Smith: publications per year, 2006 to 2026
Year Publications
2006 4
2007 2
2008 2
2009 2
2010 4
2011 1
2012 3
2013 9
2014 9
2015 12
2016 18
2017 13
2018 11
2019 13
2020 3
2021 14
2022 13
2023 12
2024 7
2025 10
2026 1
Total 163
Download as CSV

Emily E. Tanner-Smith 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 Emily E. Tanner-Smith 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, 121–130 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: 129 publications — 38th percentile

38% 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
121–130 670 129
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

Emily E. Tanner-Smith 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 Emily E. Tanner-Smith 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, 42–43 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: 42 D-Index — 36th percentile

36% 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 42
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

Best Publications

  • Digital Games, Design, and Learning A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    Douglas B. Clark;Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Stephen S. Killingsworth

  • Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and spss.

    Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Elizabeth Tipton

  • Minority stress and substance use in sexual minority adolescents: a meta-analysis

    Jeremy T. Goldbach;Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Meredith Bagwell;Shannon Dunlap

  • Brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Mark W. Lipsey

  • The comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatment for adolescent substance abuse: A meta-analysis

    Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Sandra Jo Wilson;Mark W. Lipsey

  • Handling Complex Meta-analytic Data Structures Using Robust Variance Estimates: a Tutorial in R

    Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Elizabeth Tipton;Joshua R. Polanin

  • Estimating the Difference Between Published and Unpublished Effect Sizes A Meta-Review

    Joshua R. Polanin;Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Emily A. Hennessy

  • PROTOCOL: Dropout Prevention and Intervention Programs: Effects on School Completion and Dropout Among School‐aged Children and Youth

    Sandra Jo Wilson;Mark W. Lipsey;Emily E. Tanner‐Smith;Chiungjung Huang

  • Prevention of eating disorders: A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials

    Hunna J. Watson;Tara Joyce;Elizabeth French;Vivienne Willan

  • Mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR) for improving health, quality of life and social functioning in adults: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

    Michael F. De Vibe;Arild Bjørndal;Sabina Fattah;Gunvor Marie Dyrdal

  • Child, Parent, and Situational Correlates of Familial Ethnic/Race Socialization

    Tony N. Brown;Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Chase L. Lesane-Brown;Michael E. Ezell

  • Evaluating the Health Belief Model: A critical review of studies predicting mammographic and pap screening

    Emily E Tanner-Smith;Tony N Brown

  • Comparative efficacy of psychological therapies for improving mental health and daily functioning in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Kelsey T. Laird;Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Alexandra C. Russell;Steven D. Hollon

  • Short-term and Long-term Efficacy of Psychological Therapies for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

    Kelsey T. Laird;Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Alexandra C. Russell;Steve D. Hollon

  • Between‐case standardized mean difference effect sizes for single‐case designs: a primer and tutorial using the scdhlm web application

    Jeffrey C. Valentine;Emily E. Tanner‐Smith;James E. Pustejovsky;T. S. Lau

  • Effectiveness of Brief School-Based Interventions for Adolescents: A Meta-analysis of Alcohol Use Prevention Programs

    Emily A. Hennessy;Emily E. Tanner-Smith

  • Empirically Based Mean Effect Size Distributions for Universal Prevention Programs Targeting School-Aged Youth: A Review of Meta-Analyses

    Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Joseph A. Durlak;Robert A. Marx

  • Pharmacological content of tablets sold as “ecstasy”: Results from an online testing service

    Emily E. Tanner-Smith

  • Interventions in Developing Nations for Improving Primary and Secondary School Enrollment of Children: A Systematic Review

    Anthony Petrosino;Claire Morgan;Trevor A. Fronius;Emily E. Tanner‐Smith

  • Single-Session Alcohol Interventions for Heavy Drinking College Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

    Jennifer E. Samson;Emily E. Tanner-Smith

  • Negotiating Boundaries and Bonds: Frequency of Young Children’s Socialization to Their Ethnic/Racial Heritage:

    Chase L. Lesane-Brown;Tony N. Brown;Emily E. Tanner-Smith;Marino A. Bruce

Frequent Co-Authors

Mark W. Lipsey
Mark W. Lipsey Vanderbilt University
Tony Brown
Tony Brown Manchester Metropolitan University
Jeffrey C. Valentine
Jeffrey C. Valentine University of Louisville
Zulfiqar A Bhutta
Zulfiqar A Bhutta Aga Khan University
Douglas B. Clark
Douglas B. Clark University of Calgary
Robert G. Marx
Robert G. Marx Hospital for Special Surgery
Matthias Egger
Matthias Egger University of Bern
Joseph A. Durlak
Joseph A. Durlak Loyola University Chicago
Ken C. Winters
Ken C. Winters Oregon Research 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

Pursuing a degree in psychology opens doors to diverse career opportunities, especially with the rise of online study options. A popular path for psychology graduates is becoming a substance abuse counselor, a role in high demand across the United States. Each state—and sometimes each city—has its own set of licensing requirements and certification processes for counselors.

For those interested in working in New York, it’s important to understand substance abuse counselor requirements in Buffalo. If you are considering Arizona, you can learn more about becoming a substance abuse counselor in Chandler. Each area outlines specific educational and clinical experience expectations.

Similarly, those interested in the Southeast should research substance abuse counselor requirements in Charlotte, while those in Virginia can explore becoming a substance abuse counselor in Chesapeake. Understanding the local certification process is a crucial step for anyone pursuing this impactful career through an online psychology program.

Best Scientists Citing Emily E. Tanner-Smith

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles