World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
33
Citations
4651
World Ranking
10547
National Ranking
605

Michelle H. Lim 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 Michelle H. Lim 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: 129 publications — 38th percentile

38% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Michelle H. Lim 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 Michelle H. Lim 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: 33 D-Index — 10th percentile

10% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • How the COVID-19 pandemic is focusing attention on loneliness and social isolation.

    Ben J Smith;Michelle H Lim

  • Loneliness over time: the crucial role of social anxiety

    Michelle H. Lim;Thomas L. Rodebaugh;Michael J. Zyphur;John Francis Martin Gleeson

  • Understanding loneliness in the twenty-first century: an update on correlates, risk factors, and potential solutions

    Michelle H. Lim;Robert Eres;Shradha Vasan

  • Loneliness in psychosis: a systematic review

    Michelle H. Lim;John F. M. Gleeson;Mario Alvarez-Jimenez;David L. Penn;David L. Penn

  • Does centrality in a cross-sectional network suggest intervention targets for social anxiety disorder?

    Thomas L Rodebaugh;Natasha A Tonge;Marilyn L Piccirillo;Eiko Fried

  • Social anxiety and eating disorder comorbidity and underlying vulnerabilities: Using network analysis to conceptualize comorbidity.

    Cheri A. Levinson;Leigh C. Brosof;Irina Vanzhula;Caroline Christian

  • Ecological Momentary Assessment and Intervention in the Treatment of Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review

    Imogen H. Bell;Michelle H. Lim;Susan L. Rossell;Neil Thomas

  • The economic costs of loneliness: a review of cost-of-illness and economic evaluation studies.

    Cathrine Mihalopoulos;Long Khanh Dao Le;Mary Lou Chatterton;Jessica Bucholc

  • Enhancing social functioning in young people at Ultra High Risk (UHR) for psychosis: A pilot study of a novel strengths and mindfulness-based online social therapy

    M. Alvarez-Jimenez;J. F. Gleeson;S. Bendall;David L Penn

  • A pilot digital intervention targeting loneliness in young people with psychosis

    Michelle H. Lim;John F.M. Gleeson;Thomas L. Rodebaugh;Robert Eres

  • Randomized controlled trial of interventions for young people at ultra-high risk of psychosis: Study design and baseline characteristics

    Lisa J. Phillips;Barnaby Nelson;Hok Pan Yuen;Shona M. Francey

  • The state of loneliness and social isolation research: current knowledge and future directions

    Unknown

  • Loneliness: contemporary insights into causes, correlates, and consequences.

    M. H. Lim;J. Holt-Lunstad;J. Holt-Lunstad;J. C. Badcock

  • A pilot digital intervention targeting loneliness in youth mental health

    Michelle H. Lim;Thomas L. Rodebaugh;Robert Eres;Katrina M. Long

  • Pilot randomised controlled trial of a brief coping-focused intervention for hearing voices blended with smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment and intervention (SAVVy): Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary clinical outcomes.

    Imogen H Bell;Susan L Rossell;John Farhall;Mark Hayward

  • Loneliness, mental health, and social health indicators in LGBTQIA+ Australians.

    Robert Eres;Natasha Postolovski;Monica Thielking;Michelle H. Lim

  • Loneliness and emotion regulation: implications of having social anxiety disorder

    Unknown

  • Leveraging the social network for treatment of social anxiety: Pilot study of a youth-specific digital intervention with a focus on engagement of young men.

    Simon Rice;Bridget O'Bree;Michael Wilson;Carla McEnery;Carla McEnery

  • The prevalence of chronic and episodic loneliness and social isolation from a longitudinal survey

    Unknown

  • Introducing a dual continuum model of belonging and loneliness

    Michelle H. Lim;Kelly Ann Allen;Michael J. Furlong;Heather Craig

Frequent Co-Authors

Thomas L. Rodebaugh
Thomas L. Rodebaugh Washington University in St. Louis
John Gleeson
John Gleeson Australian Catholic University
David L. Penn
David L. Penn University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Mario Alvarez-Jimenez
Mario Alvarez-Jimenez University of Melbourne
Neil Thomas
Neil Thomas Swinburne University of Technology
Julianne Holt-Lunstad
Julianne Holt-Lunstad Brigham Young University
Susan L. Rossell
Susan L. Rossell Swinburne University of Technology
Mark Hayward
Mark Hayward University of Sussex
Simon M Rice
Simon M Rice University of Melbourne
Henry J. Jackson
Henry J. Jackson University of Melbourne

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:

Best Scientists Citing Michelle H. Lim

Recently Published Articles