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
Social Sciences and Humanities 51 2600 2375 446 402 225 9844

Naomi Fulop publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Naomi Fulop between 1986 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Naomi Fulop published across 40 years, from 1986 to 2025, averaging 7.5 papers a year. Output peaked at 29 publications in 2022. 29 of the 298 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20 25
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1986 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 29. Peak 29 publications in 2022. 1986: 1 publication 1987: 0 publications 1988: 1 publication 1989: 0 publications 1990: 0 publications 1991: 1 publication 1992: 2 publications 1993: 2 publications 1994: 2 publications 1995: 4 publications 1996: 10 publications 1997: 2 publications 1998: 0 publications 1999: 6 publications 2000: 5 publications 2001: 9 publications 2002: 11 publications 2003: 6 publications 2004: 7 publications 2005: 2 publications 2006: 2 publications 2007: 1 publication 2008: 3 publications 2009: 2 publications 2010: 3 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 6 publications 2013: 11 publications 2014: 15 publications 2015: 14 publications 2016: 15 publications 2017: 11 publications 2018: 13 publications 2019: 19 publications 2020: 12 publications 2021: 19 publications 2022: 29 publications 2023: 19 publications 2024: 11 publications 2025: 18 publications
1986 2025

298 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Naomi Fulop: publications per year, 1986 to 2025
Year Publications
1986 1
1987 0
1988 1
1989 0
1990 0
1991 1
1992 2
1993 2
1994 2
1995 4
1996 10
1997 2
1998 0
1999 6
2000 5
2001 9
2002 11
2003 6
2004 7
2005 2
2006 2
2007 1
2008 3
2009 2
2010 3
2011 4
2012 6
2013 11
2014 15
2015 14
2016 15
2017 11
2018 13
2019 19
2020 12
2021 19
2022 29
2023 19
2024 11
2025 18
Total 298
Download as CSV

Naomi Fulop publication distribution in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Naomi Fulop sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400
Bar chart with 54 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 44–53 to 570+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 474. Most scientists, 474, have 114–123 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 224–233 publications, is where this scientist sits. 44–53 publications: 28 scientists 54–63 publications: 61 scientists 64–73 publications: 161 scientists 74–83 publications: 225 scientists 84–93 publications: 301 scientists 94–103 publications: 390 scientists 104–113 publications: 406 scientists 114–123 publications: 474 scientists 124–133 publications: 453 scientists 134–143 publications: 434 scientists 144–153 publications: 407 scientists 154–163 publications: 411 scientists 164–173 publications: 391 scientists 174–183 publications: 313 scientists 184–193 publications: 319 scientists 194–203 publications: 304 scientists 204–213 publications: 285 scientists 214–223 publications: 246 scientists 224–233 publications: 213 scientists 234–243 publications: 170 scientists 244–253 publications: 167 scientists 254–263 publications: 162 scientists 264–273 publications: 138 scientists 274–283 publications: 138 scientists 284–293 publications: 113 scientists 294–303 publications: 106 scientists 304–313 publications: 95 scientists 314–323 publications: 101 scientists 324–333 publications: 81 scientists 334–343 publications: 69 scientists 344–353 publications: 56 scientists 354–363 publications: 36 scientists 364–373 publications: 42 scientists 374–383 publications: 41 scientists 384–393 publications: 44 scientists 394–403 publications: 27 scientists 404–413 publications: 30 scientists 414–423 publications: 20 scientists 424–433 publications: 29 scientists 434–443 publications: 29 scientists 444–453 publications: 25 scientists 454–463 publications: 19 scientists 464–473 publications: 21 scientists 474–483 publications: 11 scientists 484–493 publications: 17 scientists 494–503 publications: 7 scientists 504–513 publications: 6 scientists 514–523 publications: 12 scientists 524–533 publications: 10 scientists 534–543 publications: 7 scientists 544–553 publications: 6 scientists 554–563 publications: 12 scientists 564–569 publications: 8 scientists 570+ publications: 100 scientists
44–53 publications 570+

This scientist: 225 publications — 73rd percentile

73% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
44–53 28
54–63 61
64–73 161
74–83 225
84–93 301
94–103 390
104–113 406
114–123 474
124–133 453
134–143 434
144–153 407
154–163 411
164–173 391
174–183 313
184–193 319
194–203 304
204–213 285
214–223 246
224–233 213 225
234–243 170
244–253 167
254–263 162
264–273 138
274–283 138
284–293 113
294–303 106
304–313 95
314–323 101
324–333 81
334–343 69
344–353 56
354–363 36
364–373 42
374–383 41
384–393 44
394–403 27
404–413 30
414–423 20
424–433 29
434–443 29
444–453 25
454–463 19
464–473 21
474–483 11
484–493 17
494–503 7
504–513 6
514–523 12
524–533 10
534–543 7
544–553 6
554–563 12
564–569 8
570+ 100
Download as CSV

Naomi Fulop D-index placement in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Naomi Fulop sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300
Bar chart with 71 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 100+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 313. Most scientists, 313, have 42 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 51 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30 D-Index: 177 scientists 31 D-Index: 210 scientists 32 D-Index: 222 scientists 33 D-Index: 188 scientists 34 D-Index: 181 scientists 35 D-Index: 243 scientists 36 D-Index: 261 scientists 37 D-Index: 272 scientists 38 D-Index: 278 scientists 39 D-Index: 300 scientists 40 D-Index: 297 scientists 41 D-Index: 308 scientists 42 D-Index: 313 scientists 43 D-Index: 300 scientists 44 D-Index: 269 scientists 45 D-Index: 260 scientists 46 D-Index: 228 scientists 47 D-Index: 251 scientists 48 D-Index: 203 scientists 49 D-Index: 186 scientists 50 D-Index: 187 scientists 51 D-Index: 166 scientists 52 D-Index: 138 scientists 53 D-Index: 141 scientists 54 D-Index: 131 scientists 55 D-Index: 137 scientists 56 D-Index: 109 scientists 57 D-Index: 129 scientists 58 D-Index: 95 scientists 59 D-Index: 105 scientists 60 D-Index: 106 scientists 61 D-Index: 86 scientists 62 D-Index: 94 scientists 63 D-Index: 77 scientists 64 D-Index: 79 scientists 65 D-Index: 59 scientists 66 D-Index: 68 scientists 67 D-Index: 51 scientists 68 D-Index: 49 scientists 69 D-Index: 40 scientists 70 D-Index: 43 scientists 71 D-Index: 40 scientists 72 D-Index: 50 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 43 scientists 75 D-Index: 45 scientists 76 D-Index: 45 scientists 77 D-Index: 30 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 31 scientists 80 D-Index: 29 scientists 81 D-Index: 18 scientists 82 D-Index: 21 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 15 scientists 85 D-Index: 15 scientists 86 D-Index: 19 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 12 scientists 89 D-Index: 7 scientists 90 D-Index: 19 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 13 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 13 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 7 scientists 97 D-Index: 6 scientists 98 D-Index: 6 scientists 99 D-Index: 6 scientists 100+ D-Index: 97 scientists
30 D-Index 100+

This scientist: 51 D-Index — 68th percentile

68% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 177
31 210
32 222
33 188
34 181
35 243
36 261
37 272
38 278
39 300
40 297
41 308
42 313
43 300
44 269
45 260
46 228
47 251
48 203
49 186
50 187
51 166 51
52 138
53 141
54 131
55 137
56 109
57 129
58 95
59 105
60 106
61 86
62 94
63 77
64 79
65 59
66 68
67 51
68 49
69 40
70 43
71 40
72 50
73 46
74 43
75 45
76 45
77 30
78 25
79 31
80 29
81 18
82 21
83 26
84 15
85 15
86 19
87 19
88 12
89 7
90 19
91 20
92 13
93 9
94 13
95 8
96 7
97 6
98 6
99 6
100+ 97
Download as CSV

Overview

Naomi Fulop is affiliated with University College London in the United Kingdom. Their research output spans medicine and health professions, with major contributions in general health professions, economics and econometrics, oncology, public health, environmental and occupational health, and health information management.

The primary topics of Naomi Fulop's work include:

  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
  • Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Mental Health and Patient Involvement

Naomi Fulop has authored papers examining remote monitoring in healthcare and coordinated care for rare diseases. Notable publications include:

  • "Remote management of covid-19 using home pulse oximetry and virtual ward support," published in 2021 in BMJ
  • "Remote home monitoring (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients: a rapid systematic review," published in 2021 in EClinicalMedicine
  • "How are patients with rare diseases and their carers in the UK impacted by the way care is coordinated? An exploratory qualitative interview study," published in 2021 in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
  • "The implementation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England," published in 2021 in EClinicalMedicine
  • "Defining Coordinated Care for People with Rare Conditions: A Scoping Review," published in 2020 in International Journal of Integrated Care

Their collaboration network includes frequent co-authors such as Angus Ramsay, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Holly Walton, Stephen Morris, and Pei Li Ng.

Frequent publication venues where Naomi Fulop's work appears include:

  • Health and Social Care Delivery Research
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • BMJ
  • EClinicalMedicine
  • Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Naomi Fulop has also contributed to academic books, including a publication by Cambridge University Press titled "Governance and Leadership" in 2023.

Best Publications

  • Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care

    Mike J Crawford;Deborah Rutter;Catherine Manley;Timothy Weaver

  • An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research

    Trisha Greenhalgh;Ellen Annandale;Richard Ashcroft;James Barlow

  • Impact of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas on mortality and length of hospital stay: difference-in-differences analysis

    Stephen Morris;Rachael M Hunter;Angus I G Ramsay;Ruth Boaden

  • Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods

    Naomi Fulop;Paul Allen;A Clarke;N Black

  • Patients or partners? Case studies of user involvement in the planning and delivery of adult mental health services in London

    Deborah Rutter;Catherine Manley;Tim Weaver;Mike J Crawford

  • Process and impact of mergers of NHS trusts: multicentre case study and management cost analysis

    Naomi Fulop;Gerasimos Protopsaltis;Andrew Hutchings;Annette King

  • Challenges to implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT): a qualitative study

    Jane Hendy;Barnaby C Reeves;Naomi Fulop;Andrew Hutchings

  • To what extent are women free to choose where to give birth? How discourses of risk, blame and responsibility influence birth place decisions.

    Kirstie Coxon;Jane Sandall;Naomi J. Fulop

  • On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research.

    Jonathan Lomas;Naomi Fulop;Diane Gagnon;Pauline Allen

  • The role of embedded research in quality improvement: a narrative review

    Cecilia Vindrola-Padros;Tom Pape;Martin Utley;Naomi J Fulop

  • Changing organisations: a study of the context and processes of mergers of health care providers in England.

    Naomi Fulop;Gerasimos Protopsaltis;Annette King;Pauline Allen

  • User involvement in the planning and delivery of mental health services: a cross-sectional survey of service users and providers.

    M. J. Crawford;T. Aldridge;K. Bhui;D. Rutter

  • Moving improvement research closer to practice: the Researcher-in-Residence model

    Martin Marshall;Christina Pagel;Catherine French;Martin Utley

  • Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health

    Rosalind Raine;Ray Fitzpatrick;Helen Barratt;Gywn Bevan

  • Investigating the use of patient involvement and patient experience in quality improvement in Norway: rhetoric or reality?

    Siri Wiig;Marianne Storm;Karina Aase;Martha Therese Gjestsen

  • Remote management of covid-19 using home pulse oximetry and virtual ward support.

    Trisha Greenhalgh;Matthew Knight;Matthew Knight;Matt Inda-Kim;Matt Inda-Kim;Naomi J Fulop

  • Remote home monitoring (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients: a rapid systematic review

    Cecilia Vindrola-Padros;Kelly E Singh;Manbinder S Sidhu;Theo Georghiou

  • Mortality and morbidity meetings: an untapped resource for improving the governance of patient safety?

    Juliet Higginson;Rhiannon Walters;Naomi Fulop

  • The hospital of the future. Better out than in? Alternatives to acute hospital care.

    Martin Hensher;Naomi Fulop;Joanna Coast;Emma Jefferys

  • Addressing the challenges of knowledge co-production in quality improvement: learning from the implementation of the researcher-in-residence model.

    Cecilia Vindrola-Padros;Laura Eyre;Helen Baxter;Helen Cramer

  • Implementing the NHS information technology programme: qualitative study of progress in acute trusts

    Jane Hendy;Naomi Fulop;Barnaby C Reeves;Andrew Hutchings

Frequent Co-Authors

Charles D.A. Wolfe
Charles D.A. Wolfe King's College London
Ruth Boaden
Ruth Boaden University of Manchester
Anthony Rudd
Anthony Rudd King's College London
Pauline Allen
Pauline Allen University of London
Martin McKee
Martin McKee London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Glenn Robert
Glenn Robert King's College London
Nick Black
Nick Black London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Charles Normand
Charles Normand Trinity College Dublin
Kathy Pritchard-Jones
Kathy Pritchard-Jones University College London
Nicholas Graves
Nicholas Graves Queensland University of Technology

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 degree in Social Sciences or Humanities opens up a variety of flexible study paths and rewarding careers. Many students now look for accelerated options to fast-track success. For those seeking a swift route to advanced qualifications, 1 year masters programs online provide an efficient way to boost credentials and enter the workforce quickly.

Undergraduates can benefit from accelerated online bachelor's degree programs, which make it possible to complete a degree in less time and at a lower cost compared to traditional options. These programs are especially popular with working adults or career changers.

Those interested in social work should explore the cheapest cswe-accredited online msw programs, which offer affordable pathways to a respected, high-impact career without sacrificing accreditation.

For students passionate about behavioral health, bcba accredited programs online provide a recognized path to board certification at a cost-effective price point.

No matter your specific interest in Social Sciences and Humanities, there are numerous affordable, flexible options that allow you to advance your education and career from anywhere in the world.

Best Scientists Citing Naomi Fulop

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles