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 68 2480 2268 270 254 289 17149

Matt Field publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Matt Field between 1974 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Matt Field published across 52 years, from 1974 to 2025, averaging 6.7 papers a year. Output peaked at 26 publications in 2018. 33 of the 349 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20 25
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1974 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 26. Peak 26 publications in 2018. 1974: 1 publication 1975: 1 publication 1976: 2 publications 1977: 0 publications 1978: 0 publications 1979: 1 publication 1980: 0 publications 1981: 0 publications 1982: 0 publications 1983: 1 publication 1984: 0 publications 1985: 0 publications 1986: 0 publications 1987: 0 publications 1988: 0 publications 1989: 2 publications 1990: 1 publication 1991: 0 publications 1992: 0 publications 1993: 0 publications 1994: 2 publications 1995: 0 publications 1996: 1 publication 1997: 1 publication 1998: 1 publication 1999: 1 publication 2000: 0 publications 2001: 1 publication 2002: 3 publications 2003: 2 publications 2004: 5 publications 2005: 6 publications 2006: 6 publications 2007: 9 publications 2008: 8 publications 2009: 6 publications 2010: 10 publications 2011: 10 publications 2012: 11 publications 2013: 25 publications 2014: 18 publications 2015: 24 publications 2016: 18 publications 2017: 15 publications 2018: 26 publications 2019: 21 publications 2020: 17 publications 2021: 17 publications 2022: 25 publications 2023: 18 publications 2024: 14 publications 2025: 19 publications
1974 2025

349 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Matt Field: publications per year, 1974 to 2025
Year Publications
1974 1
1975 1
1976 2
1977 0
1978 0
1979 1
1980 0
1981 0
1982 0
1983 1
1984 0
1985 0
1986 0
1987 0
1988 0
1989 2
1990 1
1991 0
1992 0
1993 0
1994 2
1995 0
1996 1
1997 1
1998 1
1999 1
2000 0
2001 1
2002 3
2003 2
2004 5
2005 6
2006 6
2007 9
2008 8
2009 6
2010 10
2011 10
2012 11
2013 25
2014 18
2015 24
2016 18
2017 15
2018 26
2019 21
2020 17
2021 17
2022 25
2023 18
2024 14
2025 19
Total 349
Download as CSV

Matt Field 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 Matt Field 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, 281–290 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: 289 publications — 86th percentile

86% 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
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
281–290 139 289
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

Matt Field 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 Matt Field 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, 68–69 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: 68 D-Index — 79th percentile

79% 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
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 68
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

Matt Field is affiliated with the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Their research spans the fields of Psychology and Medicine, with a substantial focus on Applied Psychology, Epidemiology, General Health Professions, Clinical Psychology, and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology.

The scientist's work centers on several key topics, including Behavioral Health and Interventions, Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes, Digital Mental Health Interventions, Mobile Health and mHealth Applications, Mental Health Research Topics, Smoking Behavior and Cessation, and Gambling Behavior and Treatments.

Recent publications by Matt Field cover a range of subjects within these areas. Notable papers include:

  • "Moderators of changes in smoking, drinking and quitting behaviour associated with the first COVID-19 lockdown in England" (2021, Addiction)
  • "Food-related attentional bias and its associations with appetitive motivation and body weight: A systematic review and meta-analysis" (2020, Appetite)
  • "Relative expected value of drugs versus competing rewards underpins vulnerability to and recovery from addiction" (2020, Behavioural Brain Research)
  • "Cognitive training and remediation interventions for substance use disorders: a Delphi consensus study" (2022, Addiction)
  • "Associations of alcohol use, mental health and socioeconomic status in England: Findings from a representative population survey" (2020, Drug and Alcohol Dependence)

Matt Field frequently collaborates with several other researchers, including Jamie Brown, Marcus R. Munafò, Matthew Hickman, Claire Garnett, and Susan Michie. These frequent coauthors have contributed to advancing research across overlapping interests in behavioral and addiction research.

The scientist's work has been published in a variety of journals, with a significant number of papers appearing in Addiction and Addiction Research & Theory. Other venues include bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, and http://isrctn.com/.

Best Publications

  • Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: A review of its development, causes, and consequences

    Matt Field;W. Miles Cox

  • A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Relationship Between Attentional Bias and Subjective Craving in Substance Abuse

    Matt Field;Marcus R. Munafò;Ingmar H. A. Franken

  • Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence

    Karin Mogg;Brendan P. Bradley;Matt Field;Jan De Houwer

  • Experimental manipulation of attentional bias increases the motivation to drink alcohol.

    Matt Field;Brian Eastwood

  • Attentional biases for alcohol cues in heavy and light social drinkers: the roles of initial orienting and maintained attention

    Matt Field;Karin Mogg;Jessica Zetteler;Brendan P. Bradley

  • Delay discounting and the alcohol Stroop in heavy drinking adolescents.

    Matt Field;Paul Christiansen;Jon Cole;Andrew Goudie

  • Acute Alcohol Effects on Inhibitory Control and Implicit Cognition: Implications for Loss of Control Over Drinking

    Matt Field;Reinout W. Wiers;Paul Christiansen;Mark T. Fillmore

  • Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: A meta-analytic investigation of mechanisms of action and moderators of effectiveness

    Andrew Jones;Lisa C.G. Di Lemma;Eric Robinson;Paul Christiansen

  • Compliance with Ecological Momentary Assessment Protocols in Substance Users: a Meta-Analysis

    Andrew Jones;Danielle Remmerswaal;Ilse Verveer;Eric Robinson

  • Attentional bias in drug dependence: vigilance for cigarette-related cues in smokers.

    Brendan P. Bradley;Karin Mogg;Tamsin Wright;Matt Field

  • Multiple behavioural impulsivity tasks predict prospective alcohol involvement in adolescents.

    Gordon Fernie;Margot Peeters;Matthew J. Gullo;Paul Christiansen

  • Attentional and approach biases for smoking cues in smokers: an investigation of competing theoretical views of addiction.

    Karin Mogg;Matt Field;Brendan P. Bradley

  • Eye movements to smoking-related cues: effects of nicotine deprivation.

    Matt Field;Karin Mogg;Brendan P. Bradley

  • Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers.

    Matt Field;Anna Kiernan;Brian Eastwood;Robert Child

  • Attentional and evaluative biases for smoking cues in nicotine dependence: component processes of biases in visual orienting.

    B.P. Bradley;M. Field;K. Mogg;J. De Houwer

  • Delay discounting and the behavioural economics of cigarette purchases in smokers: the effects of nicotine deprivation.

    Matt Field;Mary Santarcangelo;Harry Sumnall;Andrew Goudie

  • The role of attentional bias in obesity and addiction

    Matt Field;Jessica Werthmann;Ingmar Franken;Wilhelm Hofmann

  • Risk-taking but not response inhibition or delay discounting predict alcohol consumption in social drinkers

    Gordon Fernie;Jon C. Cole;Andrew J. Goudie;Matt Field

  • Experimental manipulation of attentional biases in heavy drinkers: do the effects generalise?

    Matt Field;Theodora Duka;Brian Eastwood;Robert Child

  • Effects of a low dose of alcohol on cognitive biases and craving in heavy drinkers

    Tim Schoenmakers;Tim Schoenmakers;Reinout W. Wiers;Reinout W. Wiers;Matt Field

Frequent Co-Authors

Paul Christiansen
Paul Christiansen University of Liverpool
Eric Robinson
Eric Robinson University of Liverpool
Jon C. Cole
Jon C. Cole University of Liverpool
Brendan P. Bradley
Brendan P. Bradley University of Southampton
Karin Mogg
Karin Mogg University of Southampton
Marcus R. Munafò
Marcus R. Munafò University of Bath
Reinout W. Wiers
Reinout W. Wiers University of Amsterdam
Ingmar H.A. Franken
Ingmar H.A. Franken Erasmus University Rotterdam
Lee Hogarth
Lee Hogarth University of Exeter
Theodora Duka
Theodora Duka University of Sussex

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

Considering a career in psychology opens up a variety of specialized roles, with Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) being among the most in-demand. To pursue this path, you’ll need to meet advanced degree and certification requirements that can vary by location and institution.

For instance, the Detroit bcba education requirements focus on completing a graduate program in behavior analysis or a related field, along with supervised practical experience. In comparison, Durham bcba requirements and bcba certification requirements in El Paso emphasize accredited coursework and a clear route to the BCBA exam after earning your qualifying degree.

If you’re planning to work in the Midwest, you can explore how to become a bcba in Fort Wayne for tailored steps and recommendations. Many universities now offer flexible online degrees in psychology and behavior analysis, making it easier to balance your studies with work. With the right degree and credentials, career pathways in education, mental health, rehabilitation, and private practice become available.

Best Scientists Citing Matt Field

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles