World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
52
Citations
10720
World Ranking
4988
National Ranking
531

Julian M. Pine 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 Julian M. Pine 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: 161 publications — 55th percentile

55% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Julian M. Pine 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 Julian M. Pine 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: 52 D-Index — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Julian M. Pine is affiliated with the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily spans the field of psychology, with a focus on developmental and educational psychology, cognitive neuroscience, experimental and cognitive psychology, language, and linguistics, as well as aspects of artificial intelligence.

The main topics addressed in Pine's work include language development and disorders, reading and literacy development, neurobiology of language and bilingualism, child and animal learning development, speech and dialogue systems, phonetics and phonology research, and categorization, perception, and language.

Frequent publication venues for their research include Language Learning, Cognitive Psychology, Cognitive Science, Language and Cognition, and Psychological Review. Pine has contributed notably to developmental and cognitive aspects of language acquisition and processing.

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Pine comprise:

  • Non-adjacent dependency learning in infancy, and its link to language development (2020, Cognitive Psychology)
  • Do children learn from their prediction mistakes? A registered report evaluating error-based theories of language acquisition (2020, Royal Society Open Science)
  • Simulating the Acquisition of Verb Inflection in Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder in English and Spanish (2021, Cognitive Science)
  • Syntactic Representations Are Both Abstract and Semantically Constrained: Evidence From Children's and Adults' Comprehension and Production/Priming of the English Passive (2020, Cognitive Science)
  • Verb argument structure overgeneralisations for the English intransitive and transitive constructions: grammaticality judgments and production priming (2021, Language and Cognition)

Pine has collaborated frequently with several researchers, including:

  • Caroline F. Rowland
  • Amy Bidgood
  • Andrew Jessop
  • Samantha Durrant
  • Michelle Peter

Best Publications

  • Chunking mechanisms in human learning

    Fernand Gobet;Peter C.R. Lane;Steve Croker;Peter C-H. Cheng

  • Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development*

    Elena V. M. Lieven;Julian M. Pine;Gillian Baldwin

  • The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account.

    Anna L. Theakston;Elena V. M. Lieven;Julian M. Pine;Caroline F. Rowland

  • Individual differences in early vocabulary development: redefining the referential-expressive distinction

    Elena V. M. Lieven;Julian M. Pine;Helen Dresner Barnes

  • The development of abstract syntax: evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost.

    Caroline F. Rowland;Franklin Chang;Ben Ambridge;Julian M. Pine

  • Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category

    Julian M. Pine;Elena V. M. Lieven

  • Reanalysing rote-learned phrases: individual differences in the transition to multi-word speech.

    Julian N Pine;Elena V. M. Lieven

  • The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors

    Ben Ambridge;Julian M. Pine;Caroline F. Rowland;Chris R. Young

  • The impact of shared book reading on children's language skills: A meta-analysis

    Claire Noble;Giovanni Sala;Michelle Peter;Jamie Lingwood

  • Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category

    Julian M. Pine;Elena V. M. Lieven;Caroline F. Rowland

  • Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: 'what children do know'?

    Caroline F. Rowland;Julian M. Pine

  • Modeling the Developmental Patterning of Finiteness Marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish Using MOSAIC.

    Daniel Freudenthal;Julian M. Pine;Javier Aguado-Orea;Fernand Gobet

  • Determinants of acquisition order in wh-questions: re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech.

    Caroline F. Rowland;Julian M. Pine;Elena V. M. Lieven;Anna L. Theakston

  • Semantic generality, input frequency and the acquisition of syntax

    Anna L. Theakston;Elena V.M. Lieven;Julian M. Pine;Caroline F. Rowland

  • When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task

    Michelle Peter;Franklin Chang;Julian M. Pine;Ryan Blything

  • A randomised controlled trial to test the effect of promoting caregiver contingent talk on language development in infants from diverse socioeconomic status backgrounds

    Michelle L. McGillion;Julian M. Pine;Jane S. Herbert;Danielle Matthews

  • What Paves the Way to Conventional Language? The Predictive Value of Babble, Pointing, and Socioeconomic Status.

    Michelle Louise McGillion;Jane S. Herbert;Julian M. Pine;Marilyn Vihman

  • Subject-Verb Agreement in Brazilian Portuguese: What Low Error Rates Hide.

    Rejane B. Rubino;Julian M. Pine

  • The language of primary caregivers

    Julian M. Pine

  • Comprehension of Argument Structure and Semantic Roles: Evidence from English-Learning Children and the Forced-Choice Pointing Paradigm

    Claire H. Noble;Caroline F. Rowland;Julian M. Pine

  • Maternal style at the early one-word stage: re-evaluating the stereotype of the directive mother:

    Julian M. Pine

Frequent Co-Authors

Caroline F. Rowland
Caroline F. Rowland Radboud University
Fernand Gobet
Fernand Gobet London School of Economics and Political Science
Ben Ambridge
Ben Ambridge University of Liverpool
Elena Lieven
Elena Lieven University of Manchester
Anna L. Theakston
Anna L. Theakston University of Manchester
Marilyn May Vihman
Marilyn May Vihman University of York
Gina Conti-Ramsden
Gina Conti-Ramsden University of Manchester
Padraic Monaghan
Padraic Monaghan Lancaster University
Rens Bod
Rens Bod University of Amsterdam
Laurence B. Leonard
Laurence B. Leonard Purdue University West Lafayette

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 online degrees in psychology can open doors to a range of rewarding career pathways. A popular route for graduates is pursuing licensure as a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), which is required to practice independently in many states. Requirements to become an LPC can vary widely across the U.S., so it’s important to research the regulations for your intended place of practice.

For those considering the Midwest, you might start by reviewing the Ohio lpc licensure requirements. If you are looking toward the South, understanding the lpc licensure requirements in Oklahoma can be essential. On the West Coast, be sure to check out the Oregon licensed professional counselor requirements. Meanwhile, in the Northeast, understanding the Pennsylvania licensed professional counselor requirements will be critical for those pursuing practice there.

Online psychology degrees often include coursework and internships that help meet LPC requirements, but always verify your program aligns with your state's specific standards. Investing in the right education and licensure process ensures a strong foundation for your counseling career.

Best Scientists Citing Julian M. Pine

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles