World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Philip M. Merikle

Philip M. Merikle

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
52
Citations
14767
World Ranking
4923
National Ranking
328

Philip M. Merikle 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 Philip M. Merikle 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: 97 publications — 18th percentile

18% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Philip M. Merikle 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 Philip M. Merikle 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: 52 D-Index — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Philip M. Merikle is affiliated with the University of Waterloo in Canada. Their academic profile highlights their engagement in research within this institution.

There are no detailed records of recent papers, co-authors, publication venues, book publications, main or subfields of study, main topics of work, or awards available for Philip M. Merikle.

As a result, the available information primarily identifies Philip M. Merikle by name and institutional affiliation, without further specifics on research output or disciplinary focus.

Best Publications

  • Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis.

    Meredyth Daneman;Philip M. Merikle

  • Distinguishing conscious from unconscious perceptual processes.

    Jim Cheesman;Philip M. Merikle

  • Priming with and without awareness.

    Jim Cheesman;Philip M. Merikle

  • Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion.

    John D. Eastwood;Daniel Smilek;Philip M. Merikle

  • Perception without awareness: perspectives from cognitive psychology

    Philip M. Merikle;Daniel Smilek;John D. Eastwood

  • Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness

    Eyal M. Reingold;Philip M. Merikle

  • Not all synaesthetes are created equal: projector versus associator synaesthetes.

    Mike J. Dixon;Daniel Smilek;Philip M. Merikle

  • Selective attention: a reevaluation of the implications of negative priming.

    Bruce Milliken;Steve Joordens;Philip M. Merikle;Adriane E. Seiffert

  • Parallels between Perception without Attention and Perception without Awareness

    Philip M. Merikle;Steve Joordens

  • Five plus two equals yellow

    Mike J. Dixon;Daniel Smilek;Cera Cudahy;Philip M. Merikle

  • On the Inter-relatedness of Theory and Measurement in the Study of Unconscious Processes

    Eyal M. Reingold;Philip M. Merikle

  • Comparing Direct (Explicit) and Indirect (Implicit) Measures to Study Unconscious Memory

    Philip M. Merikle;Eyal M. Reingold

  • Negative facial expression captures attention and disrupts performance.

    John D. Eastwood;Daniel Smilek;Philip M. Merikle

  • Synaesthetic Photisms Influence Visual Perception

    Daniel Smilek;Mike J. Dixon;Cera Cudahy;Philip M. Merikle

  • Unconscious perception revisited.

    Philip M. Merikle

  • Perception without awareness. Critical issues.

    Philip M. Merikle

  • Measuring the relative magnitude of unconscious influences.

    Philip M. Merikle;Steve Joordens;Jennifer A. Stolz

  • Independence or redundancy? Two models of conscious and unconscious influences

    Steve Joordens;Philip M. Merikle

  • Synesthetic Color Experiences Influence Memory

    Daniel Smilek;Mike J. Dixon;Cera Cudahy;Philip M. Merikle

  • Recognition and lexical decision without detection: unconscious perception?

    Philip M. Merikle;Eyal M. Reingold

Frequent Co-Authors

Daniel Smilek
Daniel Smilek University of Waterloo
Mike J. Dixon
Mike J. Dixon University of Waterloo
Eyal M. Reingold
Eyal M. Reingold University of Toronto
John D. Eastwood
John D. Eastwood York University
Meredyth Daneman
Meredyth Daneman University of Toronto
Max Coltheart
Max Coltheart Macquarie University
Mark P. Zanna
Mark P. Zanna University of Waterloo
Jan Passchier
Jan Passchier Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Catherine Mancini
Catherine Mancini McMaster University
Vincent Di Lollo
Vincent Di Lollo Simon Fraser University

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 a degree in Psychology opens doors to various online specializations and career pathways. One fast-growing field is Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), where professionals can become Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs). Earning your BCBA requires a graduate degree, ABA coursework, supervised experience, and passing the certification exam.

Regional pathways may vary. For example, if you're interested in becoming a bcba in Toledo, you'll need to consider local licensure and employer needs. Those looking at becoming a bcba in Tucson should look into Arizona-specific requirements and ABA job prospects. Likewise, information on how to become a bcba in Tulsa can help you better understand Oklahoma’s opportunities and expectations for BCBAs.

Students planning to work in Virginia should familiarize themselves with bcba certification requirements in Virginia Beach to ensure all state guidelines are met. Completing an online psychology degree is a versatile step, not only toward BCBA roles but also toward careers in counseling, human services, and education.

Best Scientists Citing Philip M. Merikle

Recently Published Articles