World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
54
Citations
9535
World Ranking
4653
National Ranking
497

Neuroscience

D-Index
58
Citations
10271
World Ranking
4222
National Ranking
372

Mark Mon-Williams publication distribution in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Neuroscience in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Mark Mon-Williams sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 18 scientists 48–57 publications: 79 scientists 58–67 publications: 193 scientists 68–77 publications: 323 scientists 78–87 publications: 406 scientists 88–97 publications: 452 scientists 98–107 publications: 539 scientists 108–117 publications: 505 scientists 118–127 publications: 522 scientists 128–137 publications: 469 scientists 138–147 publications: 456 scientists 148–157 publications: 459 scientists 158–167 publications: 397 scientists 168–177 publications: 383 scientists 178–187 publications: 350 scientists 188–197 publications: 302 scientists 198–207 publications: 306 scientists 208–217 publications: 262 scientists 218–227 publications: 242 scientists 228–237 publications: 220 scientists 238–247 publications: 203 scientists 248–257 publications: 174 scientists 258–267 publications: 176 scientists 268–277 publications: 175 scientists 278–287 publications: 125 scientists 288–297 publications: 116 scientists 298–307 publications: 127 scientists 308–317 publications: 128 scientists 318–327 publications: 99 scientists 328–337 publications: 89 scientists 338–347 publications: 78 scientists 348–357 publications: 96 scientists 358–367 publications: 66 scientists 368–377 publications: 59 scientists 378–387 publications: 65 scientists 388–397 publications: 54 scientists 398–407 publications: 48 scientists 408–417 publications: 49 scientists 418–427 publications: 34 scientists 428–437 publications: 31 scientists 438–447 publications: 30 scientists 448–457 publications: 31 scientists 458–467 publications: 36 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 35 scientists 488–497 publications: 30 scientists 498–507 publications: 23 scientists 508–517 publications: 26 scientists 518–527 publications: 20 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 20 scientists 548–557 publications: 20 scientists 558–567 publications: 17 scientists 568–577 publications: 14 scientists 578–587 publications: 20 scientists 588–597 publications: 20 scientists 598–607 publications: 19 scientists 608–617 publications: 18 scientists 618–627 publications: 17 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 11 scientists 648–657 publications: 11 scientists 658–667 publications: 8 scientists 668–677 publications: 7 scientists 678–687 publications: 11 scientists 688–697 publications: 10 scientists 698–707 publications: 4 scientists 708–717 publications: 6 scientists 718–727 publications: 5 scientists 728–737 publications: 5 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 9 scientists 758–767 publications: 3 scientists 768–777 publications: 7 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 6 scientists 798–807 publications: 2 scientists 808–817 publications: 2 scientists 818–827 publications: 7 scientists 828–837 publications: 0 scientists 838–847 publications: 9 scientists 848–857 publications: 3 scientists 858–867 publications: 1 scientists 868–877 publications: 3 scientists 878–886 publications: 6 scientists 887+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 887+

This scientist: 266 publications — 77th percentile

77% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 887 publications or more.

Mark Mon-Williams D-index placement in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Neuroscience scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Mark Mon-Williams sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 42 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 172 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 296 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 435 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 459 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 456 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 467 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 478 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 512 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 435 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 425 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 418 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 392 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 357 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 334 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 328 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 260 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 278 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 239 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 250 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 210 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 200 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 189 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 170 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 146 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 113 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 126 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 100 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 84 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 99 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 84 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 85 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 72 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 76 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 45 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 49 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 43 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 32 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 45 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 50 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 32 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 39 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 29 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 27 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 19 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 23 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 27 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 16 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 24 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 13 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 21 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 17 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 14 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 15 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 10 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 10 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 13 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 9 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 8 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 6 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 6 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 7 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 7 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 10 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 4 scientists 162 D-Index: 8 scientists 163+ D-Index: 100 scientists
30 D-Index 163+

This scientist: 58 D-Index — 57th percentile

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

The last bar groups every scientist with 163 D-Index or more.

Overview

Mark Mon-Williams is affiliated with the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, contributing extensively to fields related to medicine and neuroscience. Their research spans various subfields including cognitive neuroscience, health, toxicology and mutagenesis, education, developmental and educational psychology, and pediatrics, perinatology and child health.

Their main topics of work focus on motor control and adaptation, children's physical and motor development, early childhood education and development, action observation and synchronization, health, environment, and cognitive aging, tactile and sensory interactions, as well as health disparities and outcomes.

Mon-Williams has coauthored many publications with frequent collaborators such as Faisal Mushtaq, John Wright, Rosemary McEachan, Matthew Warburton, and J. Ryan Morehead. The venues where they publish regularly include bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Wellcome Open Research, PLoS ONE, International Journal for Population Data Science, and Archives of Disease in Childhood.

Selected recent papers authored or coauthored by Mon-Williams include:

  • Brain-computer interface robotics for hand rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review, 2021, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
  • The validity and reliability of observational assessment tools available to measure fundamental movement skills in school-age children: A systematic review, 2020, PLoS ONE
  • Early life multiple exposures and child cognitive function: A multi-centric birth cohort study in six European countries, 2021, Environmental Pollution
  • The effect of a virtual reality environment on gaze behaviour and motor skill learning, 2020, Psychology of sport and exercise
  • Urban environment and cognitive and motor function in children from four European birth cohorts, 2021, Environment International

Best Publications

  • Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments

    John P. Wann;Simon K. Rushton;Mark Mon-Williams

  • Aftereffects and sense of presence in virtual environments: formulation of a research and development agenda.

    K. Stanney;G. Salvendy;J. Deisinger;P. DiZio

  • Binocular vision in a virtual world: visual deficits following the wearing of a head‐mounted display

    Mark Mon-Williams;John P. Warm;Simon K. Rushton

  • What does virtual reality need?: human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments

    John Wann;Mark Mon-Williams

  • Improving vision: neural compensation for optical defocus

    Mark Mon-Williams;Mark Mon-Williams;James R Tresilian;Niall C Strang;Puja Kochhar

  • Evaluating the impact of trigeminal neuralgia.

    Joanna M Zakrzewska;Jianhua Wu;Mark Mon-Williams;Nicholas Phillips

  • Brain–computer interface robotics for hand rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review

    Paul Dominick E. Baniqued;Emily C. Stanyer;Muhammad Awais;Ali Alazmani

  • Increasing confidence in vergence as a cue to distance

    James R. Tresilian;Mark Mon-Williams;Benjamin M. Kelly

  • Some Recent Studies on the Extraretinal Contribution to Distance Perception

    Mark Mon-Williams;James R Tresilian

  • Feedback and motor skill acquisition using a haptic dental simulator

    L. M. Al-Saud;L. M. Al-Saud;F. Mushtaq;M. J. Allsop;P. C. Culmer

  • Postural control and co-ordination disorders: The swinging room revisited

    John P Wann;Mark Mon-Williams;Mark Mon-Williams;Katherine Rushton

  • A test of motor (not executive) planning in developmental coordination disorder and autism.

    Lisa M. van Swieten;Elsje van Bergen;Justin H. G. Williams;Andrew D. Wilson

  • The Judd illusion: evidence for two visual streams or two experimental conditions?

    Mark Mon-Williams;Rebecca Bull

  • When two eyes are better than one in prehension: monocular viewing and end-point variance

    Andrea Loftus;Philip Servos;Melvyn A. Goodale;Nicole Mendarozqueta

  • Exercising attention within the classroom.

    Liam Hill;Justin H G Williams;Lorna Aucott;June Milne

  • Synaesthesia in the normal limb

    Mark Mon-Williams;John P. Wann;Morgan Jenkinson;Kate Rushton

  • Visual display height.

    Robin J. Burgess-Limerick;Mark Mon-Williams;Vanessa L. Coppard

  • The effect of obstacle position on reach-to-grasp movements.

    Mark Mon-Williams;James R. Tresilian;Vanessa L. Coppard;Richard G. Carson

  • Ordinal depth information from accommodation

    Mark Mon-Williams;James R. Tresilian

  • Binocular vision in a bi-ocular world: new-generation head-mounted displays avoid causing visual deficit

    Simon K. Rushton;Mark Mon-Williams;John P. Wann

  • Motor Control and Learning

    Mark Mon‐Williams;James R Tresilian;John P Wann

Frequent Co-Authors

John P. Wann
John P. Wann Royal Holloway University of London
James R. Tresilian
James R. Tresilian University of Warwick
Geoffrey P. Bingham
Geoffrey P. Bingham Indiana University
John Wright
John Wright National Health Service
Robert D. McIntosh
Robert D. McIntosh University of Edinburgh
Brian Kelly
Brian Kelly University of Newcastle Australia
Richard G. Carson
Richard G. Carson Trinity College Dublin
Neil Small
Neil Small University of Bradford
Kate E. Pickett
Kate E. Pickett University of York
Richard J. Allen
Richard J. Allen University of Leeds

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

A background in neuroscience opens doors to various interdisciplinary career pathways. Many students explore adjacent fields such as psychology, social work, and counseling to broaden their expertise. With the increasing demand for flexible learning, there are now multiple reputable online programs that intersect with neuroscience.

For example, earning a degree from one of the best online social work programs can be ideal for those interested in clinical or community-based careers supporting mental health. If you are seeking a faster route, accelerated psychology programs online offer a quick pathway to roles in behavioral research or therapy.

Those wishing to work in schools or educational settings may consider programs such as the University of the Cumberlands School Counseling degree. Additionally, students can pursue a fully online counseling degree accredited by recognized bodies to qualify for licensure and advanced clinical roles.

Exploring these online pathways can diversify your skills and make you more competitive in neuroscience-related careers.

Best Scientists Citing Mark Mon-Williams

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles