World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
30
Citations
2637
World Ranking
11416
National Ranking
650

Gemma J. M. Read 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 Gemma J. M. Read sits on this spectrum.

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 publications 705+

This scientist: 114 publications — 29th percentile

29% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Gemma J. M. Read 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 Gemma J. M. Read sits on this spectrum.

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 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 30 D-Index — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • The crash at Kerang: Investigating systemic and psychological factors leading to unintentional non-compliance at rail level crossings.

    Paul Matthew Salmon;Paul Matthew Salmon;Gemma Read;Neville Anthony Stanton;Michael Graeme Lenne

  • Fitting methods to paradigms: are ergonomics methods fit for systems thinking?

    Paul M Salmon;Guy H Walker;Gemma J M Read;Natassia Goode

  • Back to the future: What do accident causation models tell us about accident prediction?

    Eryn Grant;Paul M. Salmon;Nicholas J. Stevens;Natassia Goode

  • Designing sociotechnical systems with cognitive work analysis: putting theory back into practice

    Gemma Read;Paul Matthew Salmon;Michael Graeme Lenne;Neville Anthony Stanton

  • State of science: evolving perspectives on 'human error'.

    Gemma J. M. Read;Steven Shorrock;Steven Shorrock;Guy H. Walker;Guy H. Walker;Paul M. Salmon

  • What's in a game? A systems approach to enhancing performance analysis in football

    Scott McLean;Paul M. Salmon;Adam D. Gorman;Gemma J. M. Read

  • Sounding the warning bells: The need for a systems approach to understanding behaviour at rail level crossings

    Gemma Read;Paul Matthew Salmon;Michael Graeme Lenne

  • More than meets the eye: Using cognitive work analysis to identify design requirements for future rail level crossing systems

    Paul M. Salmon;Michael G. Lenné;Gemma J.M. Read;Christine M. Mulvihill

  • Complexity on the rails: A systems-based approach to understanding safety management in rail transport

    Gemma J. M. Read;Anjum Naweed;Paul M. Salmon

  • Associations between task, training and social environmental factors and error types involved in rail incidents and accidents.

    Gemma J.M. Read;Michael G. Lenné;Simon A. Moss

  • Bad behaviour or societal failure? Perceptions of the factors contributing to drivers’ engagement in the fatal five driving behaviours

    P M Salmon;Gemma J M Read;Vanessa Beanland;Jason Thompson

  • Many model thinking in systems ergonomics: a case study in road safety.

    Paul M Salmon;Gemma J M Read

  • What factors influence risk at rail level crossings? A systematic review and synthesis of findings using systems thinking

    Gemma J.M. Read;Jolene A. Cox;Jolene A. Cox;Adam Hulme;Anjum Naweed

  • Who is to blame for crashes involving autonomous vehicles? Exploring blame attribution across the road transport system

    Elin Pöllänen;Gemma J.M. Read;Ben R. Lane;Jason Thompson

  • A sociotechnical design toolkit for bridging the gap between systems-based analyses and system design

    Gemma J. M. Read;Gemma J. M. Read;Paul M. Salmon;Natassia Goode;Michael G. Lenné

  • State of science: models and methods for understanding and enhancing teams and teamwork in complex sociotechnical systems

    Unknown

  • Walking the line: understanding pedestrian behaviour and risk at rail level crossings with cognitive work analysis

    Gemma Read;Paul Matthew Salmon;Michael Graeme Lenne;Neville A Stanton

  • STAMP goes EAST: Integrating systems ergonomics methods for the analysis of railway level crossing safety management

    Paul M. Salmon;Gemma J.M. Read;Guy H. Walker;Guy H. Walker;Natassia Goode

  • Situation Awareness in multi-agency emergency response: Models, methods and applications

    Alison O'Brien;Gemma J.M. Read;Paul M. Salmon

  • A Systems Approach to Performance Analysis in Women’s Netball: Using Work Domain Analysis to Model Elite Netball Performance

    Scott Mclean;Adam Hulme;Mitchell Mooney;Mitchell Mooney;Gemma J. M. Read

Frequent Co-Authors

Michael G. Lenné
Michael G. Lenné Monash University
Neville A. Stanton
Neville A. Stanton University of Southampton
Paul M. Salmon
Paul M. Salmon University of the Sunshine Coast
Guy H. Walker
Guy H. Walker Heriot-Watt University
Rasmus Nielsen
Rasmus Nielsen University of California, Berkeley
Simon Moss
Simon Moss Charles Darwin University

External Links

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:

Best Scientists Citing Gemma J. M. Read

Recently Published Articles