World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
38
Citations
5223
World Ranking
8597
National Ranking
639

Philip Winn publication distribution in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Neuroscience in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Philip Winn sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 18 scientists 48–57 publications: 79 scientists 58–67 publications: 193 scientists 68–77 publications: 323 scientists 78–87 publications: 406 scientists 88–97 publications: 452 scientists 98–107 publications: 539 scientists 108–117 publications: 505 scientists 118–127 publications: 522 scientists 128–137 publications: 469 scientists 138–147 publications: 456 scientists 148–157 publications: 459 scientists 158–167 publications: 397 scientists 168–177 publications: 383 scientists 178–187 publications: 350 scientists 188–197 publications: 302 scientists 198–207 publications: 306 scientists 208–217 publications: 262 scientists 218–227 publications: 242 scientists 228–237 publications: 220 scientists 238–247 publications: 203 scientists 248–257 publications: 174 scientists 258–267 publications: 176 scientists 268–277 publications: 175 scientists 278–287 publications: 125 scientists 288–297 publications: 116 scientists 298–307 publications: 127 scientists 308–317 publications: 128 scientists 318–327 publications: 99 scientists 328–337 publications: 89 scientists 338–347 publications: 78 scientists 348–357 publications: 96 scientists 358–367 publications: 66 scientists 368–377 publications: 59 scientists 378–387 publications: 65 scientists 388–397 publications: 54 scientists 398–407 publications: 48 scientists 408–417 publications: 49 scientists 418–427 publications: 34 scientists 428–437 publications: 31 scientists 438–447 publications: 30 scientists 448–457 publications: 31 scientists 458–467 publications: 36 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 35 scientists 488–497 publications: 30 scientists 498–507 publications: 23 scientists 508–517 publications: 26 scientists 518–527 publications: 20 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 20 scientists 548–557 publications: 20 scientists 558–567 publications: 17 scientists 568–577 publications: 14 scientists 578–587 publications: 20 scientists 588–597 publications: 20 scientists 598–607 publications: 19 scientists 608–617 publications: 18 scientists 618–627 publications: 17 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 11 scientists 648–657 publications: 11 scientists 658–667 publications: 8 scientists 668–677 publications: 7 scientists 678–687 publications: 11 scientists 688–697 publications: 10 scientists 698–707 publications: 4 scientists 708–717 publications: 6 scientists 718–727 publications: 5 scientists 728–737 publications: 5 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 9 scientists 758–767 publications: 3 scientists 768–777 publications: 7 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 6 scientists 798–807 publications: 2 scientists 808–817 publications: 2 scientists 818–827 publications: 7 scientists 828–837 publications: 0 scientists 838–847 publications: 9 scientists 848–857 publications: 3 scientists 858–867 publications: 1 scientists 868–877 publications: 3 scientists 878–886 publications: 6 scientists 887+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 887+

This scientist: 103 publications — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 887 publications or more.

Philip Winn D-index placement in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Neuroscience scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Philip Winn sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 42 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 172 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 296 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 435 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 459 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 456 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 467 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 478 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 512 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 435 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 425 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 418 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 392 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 357 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 334 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 328 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 260 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 278 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 239 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 250 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 210 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 200 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 189 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 170 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 146 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 113 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 126 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 100 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 84 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 99 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 84 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 85 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 72 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 76 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 45 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 49 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 43 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 32 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 45 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 50 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 32 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 39 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 29 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 27 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 19 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 23 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 27 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 16 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 24 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 13 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 21 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 17 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 14 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 15 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 10 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 10 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 13 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 9 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 8 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 6 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 6 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 7 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 7 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 10 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 4 scientists 162 D-Index: 8 scientists 163+ D-Index: 100 scientists
30 D-Index 163+

This scientist: 38 D-Index — 12th percentile

12% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 163 D-Index or more.

Overview

Philip Winn is affiliated with the University of Strathclyde in the United Kingdom. Their academic contributions include research published in the journal Health and Social Care Chaplaincy.

One of their recorded publications is titled "Oord, T. J. (2019) God can't: How to believe in god and love after tragedy, abuse, or other evils." This paper was published in 2021 and has been cited once. The work explores complex themes at the intersection of theology and social care, reflecting an interest in how belief systems can be reconciled with experiences of trauma and hardship.

  • Health and Social Care Chaplaincy

Philip Winn does not appear to frequently collaborate with other authors, as there are no recorded frequent co-authors. Their publication record is focused primarily within the single venue of Health and Social Care Chaplaincy.

Best Publications

  • The pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: where the striatum meets the reticular formation.

    Wendy L. Inglis;Philip Winn

  • Modulation of dopamine efflux in the nucleus accumbens after cholinergic stimulation of the ventral tegmental area in intact, pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus-lesioned, and laterodorsal tegmental nucleus-lesioned rats

    Charles D. Blaha;Laura F. Allen;Sheela Das;Wendy L. Inglis

  • How best to consider the structure and function of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: Evidence from animal studies

    Philip Winn

  • Multiple cholecystokinin receptors in the CNS: Edited by C. T. Dourish, S. J. Cooper, S. D. Iversen and L. L. Iversen. Oxford University Press, 1992

    Philip Winn

  • Cholinergic modulation of midbrain dopaminergic systems

    J. Mena-Segovia;P. Winn;J.P. Bolam

  • Modulation of dopamine efflux in the striatum following cholinergic stimulation of the substantia nigra in intact and pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus-lesioned rats

    CD Blaha;P Winn

  • The pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: a role in cognitive processes?

    Thomas Sleekier;Wendy Inglis;Philip Winn;Arjun Sahgal

  • Ibotenic acid lesions of the lateral hypothalamus: Comparison with the electrolytic lesion syndrome

    P. Winn;A. Tarbuck;S.B. Dunnett

  • On the Relationships Between the Striatum and the Pedunculopontine Tegmental Nucleus

    Philip Winn;Verity J. Brown;Wendy L. Inglis

  • Frontal syndrome as a consequence of lesions in the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: A short theoretical review

    Philip Winn

  • Outflow from the nucleus accumbens to the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: A dissociation between locomotor activity and the acquisition of responding for conditioned reinforcement stimulated by d-amphetamine

    W.L. Inglis;J.S. Dunbar;P. Winn

  • Neurotoxic amino acid lesions of the lateral hypothalamus: a parametric comparison of the effects of ibotenate, N-methyl-d,l-aspartate and quisqualate in the rat

    M.H. Hastings;P. Winn;S.B. Dunnett

  • The pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus - A functional hypothesis from the comparative literature

    Nadine K. Gut;Philip Winn

  • Deep Brain Stimulation of Different Pedunculopontine Targets in a Novel Rodent Model of Parkinsonism

    Nadine K. Gut;Philip Winn

  • Feeding stimulated by very low doses of d-amphetamine administered systemically or by microinjection into the striatum.

    Philip Winn;Sarah F. Williams;L. J. Herberg

  • An investigation into the role of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in the mediation of locomotion and orofacial stereotypy induced by d-amphetamine and apomorphine in the rat

    W.L. Inglis;L.F. Allen;R.B. Whitelaw;M.P. Latimer

  • Experimental studies of pedunculopontine functions: Are they motor, sensory or integrative?

    Philip Winn

  • The roles of the nucleus accumbens core, dorsomedial striatum, and dorsolateral striatum in learning: performance and extinction of Pavlovian fear conditioned responses and instrumental avoidance responses

    Etieli Wendler;Jessica C.C. Gaspar;Tatiana L. Ferreira;Janaína K. Barbiero

  • Bar pressing for food : differential consequences of lesions to the anterior versus posterior pedunculopontine

    David I. G. Wilson;Duncan A. A. MacLaren;Philip Winn

  • Impaired delayed spatial win-shift behaviour on the eight arm radial maze following excitotoxic lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex in the rat

    Claire L Taylor;Mary P Latimer;Philip Winn

  • Examination of the role of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in radial maze tasks with or without a delay.

    G.L Keating;P Winn

Frequent Co-Authors

Charles D. Blaha
Charles D. Blaha Mayo Clinic
Claudio Da Cunha
Claudio Da Cunha Federal University of Paraná
Trevor W. Robbins
Trevor W. Robbins University of Cambridge
Peter Redgrave
Peter Redgrave University of Sheffield
Verity J. Brown
Verity J. Brown University of St Andrews
Michael H. Hastings
Michael H. Hastings MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Stephen B. Dunnett
Stephen B. Dunnett Cardiff University
Marcus Lira Brandão
Marcus Lira Brandão Universidade de São Paulo
Daniel S. Zahm
Daniel S. Zahm Saint Louis University
Barbara J. Sahakian
Barbara J. Sahakian University of Cambridge

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 Philip Winn

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles