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 32 10765 10078 5629 5140 75 6683

Nicole M. McNeil publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Nicole M. McNeil between 1998 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Nicole M. McNeil published across 28 years, from 1998 to 2025, averaging 3.2 papers a year. Output peaked at 11 publications in 2023. 6 of the 90 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
2 4 6 8 10
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1998 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 11. Peak 11 publications in 2023. 1998: 1 publication 1999: 0 publications 2000: 2 publications 2001: 2 publications 2002: 1 publication 2003: 0 publications 2004: 1 publication 2005: 3 publications 2006: 2 publications 2007: 3 publications 2008: 3 publications 2009: 8 publications 2010: 2 publications 2011: 2 publications 2012: 2 publications 2013: 3 publications 2014: 8 publications 2015: 3 publications 2016: 4 publications 2017: 3 publications 2018: 6 publications 2019: 3 publications 2020: 5 publications 2021: 4 publications 2022: 2 publications 2023: 11 publications 2024: 4 publications 2025: 2 publications
1998 2025

90 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Nicole M. McNeil: publications per year, 1998 to 2025
Year Publications
1998 1
1999 0
2000 2
2001 2
2002 1
2003 0
2004 1
2005 3
2006 2
2007 3
2008 3
2009 8
2010 2
2011 2
2012 2
2013 3
2014 8
2015 3
2016 4
2017 3
2018 6
2019 3
2020 5
2021 4
2022 2
2023 11
2024 4
2025 2
Total 90
Download as CSV

Nicole M. McNeil 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 Nicole M. McNeil 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, 71–80 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: 75 publications — 6th percentile

6% 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 75
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
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

Nicole M. McNeil 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 Nicole M. McNeil 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, 32–33 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: 32 D-Index — 6th percentile

6% 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 32
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
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

Nicole M. McNeil is affiliated with the University of Notre Dame in the United States. Their research spans multiple areas within mathematics and social sciences, intersecting heavily with psychology, particularly related to education and developmental processes.

The main fields of study in their work include:

  • Mathematics
  • Social Sciences
  • Psychology

Their subfields of study encompass:

  • Education
  • Statistics and Probability
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

The core topics covered in their publications are:

  • Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
  • Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
  • Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Reading and Literacy Development
  • Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Science Education and Pedagogy

Nicole M. McNeil has published research in several respected venues. Frequent publication platforms include:

  • Journal of Educational Psychology
  • Journal of Numerical Cognition
  • Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
  • Developmental Science
  • Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness

Some recent papers authored by or associated with Nicole M. McNeil cover various facets of mathematical learning and developmental psychology:

  • Partial knowledge in the development of number word understanding, 2020, Developmental Science
  • Earlier understanding of mathematical equivalence in elementary school predicts greater algebra readiness in middle school, 2021, Journal of Educational Psychology
  • Improving Children's Understanding of Mathematical Equivalence: An Efficacy Study, 2022, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness
  • Improving access to frontline psychosocial services for youths in difficulty by using LSS: an action research case study, 2021, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
  • Gesturing May Not Always Make Learning Last, 2022, eScholarship (California Digital Library)

Their frequent co-authors include:

  • Patrick K. Kirkland
  • Connor D. O'Rear
  • Caroline Byrd Hornburg
  • Claire Guang
  • Ying Cheng

Best Publications

  • Does Understanding the Equal Sign Matter? Evidence from Solving Equations

    Eric J. Knuth;Ana C. Stephens;Nicole M. McNeil;Martha W. Alibali

  • ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: contributions of inhibitory control.

    Mary Wagner Fuhs;Nicole M. McNeil

  • Why Won't You Change Your Mind? Knowledge of Operational Patterns Hinders Learning and Performance on Equations

    Nicole M. McNeil;Martha W. Alibali

  • Concreteness Fading in Mathematics and Science Instruction: A Systematic Review.

    Emily R. Fyfe;Nicole M. McNeil;Ji Y. Son;Robert L. Goldstone

  • Middle School Students’ Understanding of Core Algebraic Concepts: Equivalence & Variable

    Eric J. Knuth;Martha W. Alibali;Nicole M. McNeil;Aaron Weinberg

  • When Theories Don't Add Up: Disentangling he Manipulatives Debate

    Nicole M. McNeil;Linda Jarvin

  • Middle-School Students' Understanding of the Equal Sign: The Books They Read Can't Help

    Nicole M. McNeil;Laura Grandau;Eric J. Knuth;Martha W. Alibali

  • Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems

    Nicole M. McNeil;David H. Uttal;Linda Jarvin;Robert J. Sternberg

  • THE ROLE OF GESTURE IN CHILDREN'S COMPREHENSION OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE: NOW THEY NEED IT, NOW THEY DON'T

    Nicole M. McNeil;Martha W. Alibali;Julia L. Evans

  • Knowledge Change as a Function of Mathematics Experience: All Contexts are Not Created Equal

    Nicole M. McNeil;Martha W. Alibali

  • A Longitudinal Examination of Middle School Students' Understanding of the Equal Sign and Equivalent Equations

    Martha W. Alibali;Eric J. Knuth;Shanta Hattikudur;Nicole M. McNeil

  • “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge

    Nicole M. McNeil;Emily R. Fyfe

  • You'll see what you mean: Students encode equations based on their knowledge of arithmetic

    Nicole M. McNeil;Martha W. Alibali

  • Using Concreteness in Education: Real Problems, Potential Solutions

    Megan C. Brown;Nicole M. McNeil;Arthur M. Glenberg

  • U-Shaped Development in Math: 7-Year-Olds Outperform 9-Year-Olds on Equivalence Problems

    Nicole M. McNeil

  • Limitations to Teaching Children 2 + 2 = 4: Typical Arithmetic Problems Can Hinder Learning of Mathematical Equivalence

    Nicole M. McNeil

  • Rethinking the use of concrete materials in learning: Perspectives from development and education

    Nicole M. McNeil;David H. Uttal

  • Benefits of "concreteness fading" for children's mathematics understanding *

    Emily R. Fyfe;Nicole M. McNeil;Stephanie Borjas

  • Divergence of Verbal Expression and Embodied Knowledge: Evidence from Speech and Gesture in Children with Specific Language Impairment.

    Julia L. Evans;Martha W. Alibali;Nicole M. McNeil

  • Benefits of Practicing 4 = 2 + 2: Nontraditional Problem Formats Facilitate Children’s Understanding of Mathematical Equivalence

    Nicole M. McNeil;Emily R. Fyfe;Lori A. Petersen;April E. Dunwiddie

Frequent Co-Authors

Martha W. Alibali
Martha W. Alibali University of Wisconsin–Madison
James R. Brockmole
James R. Brockmole University of Notre Dame
Keith Weber
Keith Weber Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Bert De Smedt
Bert De Smedt KU Leuven
David H. Uttal
David H. Uttal Northwestern University
Bethany Rittle-Johnson
Bethany Rittle-Johnson Vanderbilt University
Michèle M.M. Mazzocco
Michèle M.M. Mazzocco University of Minnesota
Julia L. Evans
Julia L. Evans The University of Texas at Dallas
Camilla Gilmore
Camilla Gilmore Loughborough University
Sidney K. D'Mello
Sidney K. D'Mello University of Colorado Boulder

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

Studying psychology in the USA opens up a diverse set of pathways, including online degrees and specialized career options. Many students choose to advance their careers in applied psychology fields, such as becoming a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA). Online psychology and behavioral science programs can help prepare candidates to meet certification requirements and gain the practical skills needed for success.

Each state often has unique prerequisites for those wishing to become a BCBA. For example, aspiring professionals should review the Portland bcba requirements if they plan to work in Oregon, or explore the Raleigh bcba requirements for those considering North Carolina.

Similarly, requirements differ for individuals in Nevada and Virginia—key details can be found through the Reno bcba education requirements and Richmond bcba requirements. Understanding state-specific guidelines is essential when choosing a program and planning your career. With the growth of online degree offerings, students nationwide can now conveniently access programs that align with their licensure goals and desired career outcomes.

Best Scientists Citing Nicole M. McNeil

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles