World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
53
Citations
11369
World Ranking
4796
National Ranking
512

Michael Siegal 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 Michael Siegal 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: 146 publications — 47th percentile

47% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Michael Siegal 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 Michael Siegal 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: 53 D-Index — 59th percentile

59% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2005 - Fellow of Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Overview

Michael Siegal was affiliated with the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Their academic career encompassed research contributions recognized by the award of Fellow status from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in 2005.

The scientist's work covered various areas of research; however, specific details regarding their fields of study, subfields, main topics, or publication venues were not documented. There is also no recorded information about recent papers, co-authors, or book publications associated with their name.

The available information primarily highlights the institutional affiliation and acknowledgment through fellowship, indicating participation in the scientific community at an established level during their career.

Best Publications

  • Deafness, Conversation and Theory of Mind

    Candida C. Peterson;Michael Siegal

  • Insights into theory of mind from deafness and autism.

    Candida C. Peterson;Michael Siegal

  • Signposts to Development: Theory of Mind in Deaf Children

    Tyron Woolfe;Stephen C. Want;Michael Siegal

  • Where to look first for children's knowledge of false beliefs.

    Michael Siegal;Karen Beattie

  • Neural systems involved in 'theory of mind'

    Michael Siegal;Rosemary Varley

  • Representing Inner Worlds: Theory of Mind in Autistic, Deaf, and Normal Hearing Children

    Candida C. Peterson;Michael Siegal

  • Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than by mothers

    Michael Siegal

  • Do people believe behaviours are consistent with attitudes? Towards a cultural psychology of attribution processes.

    Yoshihisa Kashima;Michael Siegal;Kenichiro Tanaka;Emiko S. Kashima

  • Knowing Children: Experiments in Conversation and Cognition

    Michael Siegal

  • Agrammatic but numerate

    Rosemary A. Varley;Nicolai J. C. Klessinger;Charles A. J. Romanowski;Michael Siegal

  • Evidence for cognition without grammar from causal reasoning and ‘theory of mind’ in an agrammatic aphasic patient

    Rosemary Varley;Michael Siegal

  • Severe impairment in grammar does not preclude theory of mind.

    Rosemary Varley;Michael Siegal;Stephen C. Want

  • Contamination Sensitivity in Young Children

    Michael Siegal;David L. Share

  • Language access and theory of mind reasoning: evidence from deaf children in bilingual and oralist environments.

    Marek Meristo;Kerstin W. Falkman;Erland Hjelmquist;Mariantonia Tedoldi

  • The Cognitive Basis of Science

    Peter Carruthers;Stephen P. Stich;Michael Siegal

  • Culture and Children's Cosmology.

    Michael Siegal;George Butterworth;Peter A. Newcombe

  • Children's knowledge of contagion and contamination as causes of illness.

    Michael Siegal

  • Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children.

    Michael Siegal;Michael Siegal;Laura Iozzi;Luca Surian

  • Theory of Mind and Pragmatic Understanding Following Right Hemisphere Damage

    Michael Siegal;Janet Carrington;Michael Radel

  • Changing focus on the representational mind: Deaf, autistic and normal children's concepts of false photos, false drawings and false beliefs

    Candida C. Peterson;Michael Siegal

  • The Cognitive Basis of Science: Science and innateness

    Peter Carruthers;Stephen Stich;Michael Siegal

Frequent Co-Authors

Candida C. Peterson
Candida C. Peterson University of Queensland
Luca Surian
Luca Surian University of Trento
Stephen Stich
Stephen Stich Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Peter Carruthers
Peter Carruthers University of Maryland, College Park
Mark Blades
Mark Blades University of Sheffield
Stefano Occhipinti
Stefano Occhipinti Griffith University
Peter A. Newcombe
Peter A. Newcombe University of Queensland
Virginia Slaughter
Virginia Slaughter University of Queensland
Yoshihisa Kashima
Yoshihisa Kashima University of Melbourne
Michael S. Humphreys
Michael S. Humphreys University of Queensland

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 is an excellent way to start a career in mental health services, including marriage and family therapy (MFT). These flexible programs make it easier for students to obtain the education needed to pursue licensure across various states.

Requirements for becoming an MFT can vary significantly by location. For example, if you're interested in learning how to become a marriage and family therapist in Denver, you'll need to understand local licensing processes and supervised practice expectations.

Similarly, those considering mft requirements in Detroit must meet specific state standards, including advanced education and exams. If you’re focused on North Carolina, reviewing Durham mft education requirements can guide you on coursework and clinical experience criteria.

In other regions like Texas, understanding El Paso mft education requirements will ensure you’re meeting local qualifications. Online psychology degrees often provide the flexibility to meet these diverse requirements, opening up multiple career pathways nationwide.

Best Scientists Citing Michael Siegal

Recently Published Articles