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 40 8105 7565 797 761 82 9655

Janice Connell publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Janice Connell between 1998 and 2023, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Janice Connell published across 26 years, from 1998 to 2023, averaging 3.5 papers a year. Output peaked at 14 publications in 2014. 6 of the 91 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1998 to 2023. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 14. Peak 14 publications in 2014. 1998: 1 publication 1999: 1 publication 2000: 2 publications 2001: 5 publications 2002: 1 publication 2003: 1 publication 2004: 0 publications 2005: 3 publications 2006: 3 publications 2007: 3 publications 2008: 6 publications 2009: 1 publication 2010: 3 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 2 publications 2013: 3 publications 2014: 14 publications 2015: 0 publications 2016: 1 publication 2017: 5 publications 2018: 5 publications 2019: 5 publications 2020: 10 publications 2021: 6 publications 2022: 5 publications 2023: 1 publication
1998 2023

91 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Janice Connell: publications per year, 1998 to 2023
Year Publications
1998 1
1999 1
2000 2
2001 5
2002 1
2003 1
2004 0
2005 3
2006 3
2007 3
2008 6
2009 1
2010 3
2011 4
2012 2
2013 3
2014 14
2015 0
2016 1
2017 5
2018 5
2019 5
2020 10
2021 6
2022 5
2023 1
Total 91
Download as CSV

Janice Connell 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 Janice Connell 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, 81–90 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: 82 publications — 9th percentile

9% 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 82
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
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

Janice Connell 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 Janice Connell 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, 40–41 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: 40 D-Index — 30th percentile

30% 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 40
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

Janice Connell is affiliated with the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Their research focuses primarily on health professions, with a significant emphasis on topics related to health systems, economic evaluations, and quality of life.

The main fields of study covered by Connell's work include health professions, economics and econometrics, health, materials chemistry, and sociology and political science. Their research spans both general and specific disciplinary areas such as general health professions and economic aspects of healthcare.

Connell's scholarly output includes numerous papers addressing key issues in health and wellbeing. Notable recent publications include:

  • The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results, 2022, Value in Health
  • Social prescribing for people with complex needs: a realist evaluation, 2021, BMC Family Practice
  • Person-centred experiential therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy delivered in the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service for the treatment of moderate or severe depression (PRaCTICED): a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial, 2021, The Lancet Psychiatry
  • What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB?, 2021, The European Journal of Health Economics
  • Qualitative Review on Domains of Quality of Life Important for Patients, Social Care Users, and Informal Carers to Inform the Development of the EQ-HWB, 2022, Value in Health

The frequent co-authors collaborating with Connell include:

  • John Brazier
  • Jill Carlton
  • Tessa Peasgood
  • Clara Mukuria
  • Peter Bower

Connell's research is often published in established venues such as Value in Health, OPAL (Open@LaTrobe) at La Trobe University, BMC Psychiatry, Fusion Engineering and Design, and BMC Family Practice.

The primary research topics addressed within Connell's body of work cover:

  • Health systems, economic evaluations, and quality of life
  • Health disparities and outcomes
  • Geriatric care and nursing homes
  • Mental health and patient involvement
  • Health, psychology, and well-being
  • Fusion materials and technologies
  • Nuclear materials and properties

Best Publications

  • Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM.

    Chris Evans;Janice Connell;Michael Barkham;Frank Margison

  • CORE: Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation

    Chris Evans;John Mellor-Clark;Frank Margison;Michael Barkham

  • Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: Toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies.

    Michael Barkham;Frank Margison;Chris Leach;Mike Lucock

  • Measurement and psychotherapy: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence.

    Frank R. Margison;Michael Barkham;Chris Evans;Graeme McGRATH

  • Dose-effect relations and responsive regulation of treatment duration: the good enough level.

    Michael Barkham;Janice Connell;William B Stiles;Jeremy N V Miles

  • Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural, person-centred, and psychodynamic therapies in UK primary-care routine practice: replication in a larger sample.

    William B. Stiles;Michael Barkham;John Mellor-Clark;Janice Connell

  • The CORE-10: A short measure of psychological distress for routine use in the psychological therapies

    Michael Barkham;Bridgette Bewick;Tracy Mullin;Simon Gilbody

  • Quality of life of people with mental health problems: a synthesis of qualitative research

    Janice Connell;John Brazier;Alicia O’Cathain;Myfanwy Lloyd-Jones

  • A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures.

    John Brazier;Janice Connell;Diana Papaioannou;Clara Mukuria

  • The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL).

    Janice Connell;Jill Carlton;Andrew Grundy;Elizabeth Taylor Buck

  • Suitability and utility of the CORE-OM and CORE-A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings

    Michael Barkham;Naomi Gilbert;Janice Connell;Chris Marshall

  • Distribution of CORE–OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS–R

    Janice Connell;Michael Barkham;William B. Stiles;Elspeth Twigg

  • The rationale for developing and implementing core outcome batteries for routine use in service settings and psychotherapy outcome research

    Michael Barkham;Chris Evans;Frank Margison;Graeme Mcgrath

  • Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): a new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties†

    Anju Devianee Keetharuth;John E. Brazier;Janice Connell;Jakob Bue Bjorner

  • A core approach to practice-based evidence: A brief history of the origins and applications of the CORE-OM and CORE System

    Michael Barkham;John Mellor-Clark;Janice Connell;Jane Cahill

  • Measuring quality of life in mental health: are we asking the right questions?

    Janice Connell;Alicia O'Cathain;John Brazier

  • Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measures.

    M Barkham;F Margison;C Leach;M Lucock

  • The Young Person's CORE: Development of a brief outcome measure for young people

    Elspeth Twigg;Michael Barkham;Bridgette M. Bewick;Brendan Mulhern

  • The EQ Health and Wellbeing: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results.

    Unknown

  • Practice‐based evidence: benchmarking NHS primary care counselling services at national and local levels

    Chris Evans;Janice Connell;Michael Barkham;Chris Marshall

  • Responsive regulation of treatment duration in routine practice in United Kingdom primary care settings: replication in a larger sample.

    William B. Stiles;Michael Barkham;Janice Connell;John Mellor-Clark

Frequent Co-Authors

Michael Barkham
Michael Barkham University of Sheffield
John Brazier
John Brazier University of Sheffield
Gillian E. Hardy
Gillian E. Hardy University of Sheffield
Simon Gilbody
Simon Gilbody University of York
Peter Bower
Peter Bower University of Manchester
Glenys Parry
Glenys Parry University of Sheffield
Brendan Mulhern
Brendan Mulhern University of Technology Sydney
Martin Knapp
Martin Knapp London School of Economics and Political Science
William B. Stiles
William B. Stiles Miami University

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 psychology degree in the USA opens the door to multiple online programs and diverse career pathways. Students interested in counseling, therapy, or mental health services often aim to become Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs), but requirements vary by state.

For example, New Jersey lpc licensure requirements emphasize a master’s degree in counseling, supervised clinical experience, and passing a state-recognized exam. In comparison, the process for lpc licensure requirements in New Mexico includes specific coursework and a minimum number of supervised hours.

Aspiring professionals in New York must meet the New York licensed professional counselor requirements, which involve unique state-mandated education and training criteria. Meanwhile, the North Carolina lpc licensure requirements include ongoing education and professional examinations.

Exploring these state-specific pathways is crucial for students who want to tailor their online degree choices to match career goals in psychology, counseling, or mental health. This ensures a smoother path to state licensure and a rewarding career.

Best Scientists Citing Janice Connell

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles