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 34 10292 9634 1011 965 80 3845

Ruth Filik publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Ruth Filik between 2003 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Ruth Filik published across 23 years, from 2003 to 2025, averaging 4 papers a year. Output peaked at 8 publications in 2018. 8 of the 92 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
2 4 6 8
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2003 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 8. Peak 8 publications in 2018. 2003: 1 publication 2004: 4 publications 2005: 4 publications 2006: 3 publications 2007: 2 publications 2008: 6 publications 2009: 5 publications 2010: 3 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 1 publication 2013: 2 publications 2014: 2 publications 2015: 3 publications 2016: 5 publications 2017: 2 publications 2018: 8 publications 2019: 4 publications 2020: 7 publications 2021: 6 publications 2022: 7 publications 2023: 5 publications 2024: 5 publications 2025: 3 publications
2003 2025

92 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Ruth Filik: publications per year, 2003 to 2025
Year Publications
2003 1
2004 4
2005 4
2006 3
2007 2
2008 6
2009 5
2010 3
2011 4
2012 1
2013 2
2014 2
2015 3
2016 5
2017 2
2018 8
2019 4
2020 7
2021 6
2022 7
2023 5
2024 5
2025 3
Total 92
Download as CSV

Ruth Filik 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 Ruth Filik 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: 80 publications — 8th percentile

8% 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 80
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

Ruth Filik 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 Ruth Filik 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, 34–35 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: 34 D-Index — 13th percentile

13% 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
34–35 671 34
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

Ruth Filik is a researcher affiliated with the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom. Their work predominantly spans the fields of psychology and neuroscience, with significant contributions within experimental and cognitive psychology as well as cognitive neuroscience. Additional subfields of study include human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, and clinical psychology.

Their research interests focus on topics related to language, metaphor, and cognition, as well as the neurobiology of language and bilingualism. Other areas of work include digital communication and language, reading and literacy development, eating disorders and behaviors, humor studies and applications, and linguistics and discourse analysis.

Ruth Filik has published numerous papers across various academic journals. Recent papers include:

  • Investigating effects of emoji on neutral narrative text: Evidence from eye movements and perceived emotional valence, 2020, Computers in Human Behavior
  • Emoji as a tool to aid the comprehension of written sarcasm: Evidence from younger and older adults, 2021, Computers in Human Behavior
  • The role of emoticons in sarcasm comprehension in younger and older adults: Evidence from an eye-tracking experiment, 2020, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
  • Development and validation of new figural scales for female body dissatisfaction assessment on two dimensions: thin-ideal and muscularity-ideal, 2020, BMC Public Health
  • The impact of hyperbole on perception of victim testimony, 2021, Journal of Pragmatics

Ruth Filik's research has been published frequently in journals such as the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Discourse Processes, Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, and the Journal of Memory and Language.

  • Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (3 publications)
  • Discourse Processes (3 publications)
  • Computers in Human Behavior (2 publications)
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition (2 publications)
  • Journal of Memory and Language (2 publications)

Several frequent coauthors have collaborated with Ruth Filik, including Hannah Howman, Michael G. Cutter, Kevin B. Paterson, Christina Ralph-Nearman, and Christopher J. Hand.

  • Hannah Howman
  • Michael G. Cutter
  • Kevin B. Paterson
  • Christina Ralph-Nearman
  • Christopher J. Hand

Best Publications

  • Sarcasm in Written Communication: Emoticons are Efficient Markers of Intention

    Dominic Thompson;Ruth Filik

  • Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs.

    Ruth Filik;Hartmut Leuthold;Katie Wallington;Jemma Page

  • Labeling of medicines and patient safety : Evaluating methods of reducing drug name confusion

    Ruth Filik;Kevin J. Purdy;Alastair G. Gale;David Gerrett

  • Sarcasm and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact.

    Ruth Filik;Alexandra Țurcan;Dominic Thompson;Nicole Harvey

  • The on-line processing of written irony.

    Ruth Filik;Linda M. Moxey

  • Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: evidence from the N400.

    Ruth Filik;Hartmut Leuthold

  • Emotional responses to irony and emoticons in written language: Evidence from EDA and facial EMG.

    Dominic Thompson;Ian G. Mackenzie;Hartmut Leuthold;Ruth Filik

  • Drug name confusion: evaluating the effectiveness of capital ("Tall Man") letters using eye movement data.

    Ruth Filik;Kevin Purdy;Alastair G. Gale;David Gerrett

  • Children's comprehension of sentences with focus particles

    Kevin B Paterson;Simon Paul Liversedge;Caroline Rowland;Ruth Filik

  • Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: evidence from eye movements.

    Ruth Filik

  • Inner Speech during Silent Reading Reflects the Reader's Regional Accent

    Ruth Filik;Emma Barber

  • The on-line processing of socio-emotional information in prototypical scenarios: inferences from brain potentials

    Hartmut Leuthold;Ruth Filik;Kirsty Murphy;Ian G. Mackenzie

  • Processing pronouns without antecedents: Evidence from event-related brain potentials

    Ruth Filik;Anthony J. Sanford;Hartmut Leuthold

  • Online processing of moral transgressions: ERP evidence for spontaneous evaluation

    Hartmut Leuthold;Angelika Kunkel;Ian G. Mackenzie;Ruth Filik

  • Processing doubly quantified sentences: evidence from eye movements.

    Ruth. Filik;Kevin.B. Paterson;Simon Paul Liversedge

  • "They" as a gender-unspecified singular pronoun: eye tracking reveals a processing cost.

    Anthony J. Sanford;Ruth Filik

  • The emotional impact of verbal irony: Eye-tracking evidence for a two-stage process

    Ruth Filik;Emily Brightman;Chloe Gathercole;Hartmut Leuthold

  • An eye-tracking investigation of written sarcasm comprehension: The roles of familiarity and context.

    Alexandra Țurcan;Ruth Filik

  • The role of defaultness and personality factors in sarcasm interpretation: evidence from eye-tracking during reading

    Ruth Filik;Hannah Howman;Christina Ralph-Nearman;Rachel Giora

  • New body scales reveal body dissatisfaction, thin-ideal, and muscularity-ideal in males

    Christina Ralph-Nearman;Ruth Filik

  • The role of character-based knowledge in online narrative comprehension: Evidence from eye movements and ERPs

    Ruth Filik;Hartmut Leuthold

  • A systematic and methodological review of attentional biases in eating disorders: Food, body, and perfectionism.

    Christina Ralph‐Nearman;Christina Ralph‐Nearman;Margaret Achee;Rachel Lapidus;Jennifer L. Stewart;Jennifer L. Stewart

  • Focus identification during sentence comprehension: evidence from eye movements.

    Kevin B. Paterson;Simon P. Liversedge;Ruth Filik;Barbara J. Juhasz

  • Parsing with focus particles in context: Eye movements during the processing of relative clause ambiguities

    Ruth Filik;Kevin B. Paterson;Simon Paul Liversedge

  • Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: evidence from eye movements during reading.

    Kevin B. Paterson;Ruth Filik;Simon P. Liversedge

  • Processing contextual and lexical cues to focus: Evidence from eye movements in reading

    Antje Sauermann;Ruth Filik;Kevin B. Paterson

Frequent Co-Authors

Kevin B. Paterson
Kevin B. Paterson University of Leicester
Hartmut Leuthold
Hartmut Leuthold University of Tübingen
Simon Paul Liversedge
Simon Paul Liversedge University of Central Lancashire
Anthony J. Sanford
Anthony J. Sanford University of Glasgow
John Maltby
John Maltby University of Leicester
Sahib S. Khalsa
Sahib S. Khalsa Laureate Institute for Brain Research
Rachel Giora
Rachel Giora Tel Aviv University
Claire Lawrence
Claire Lawrence University of Nottingham
Sarah J. White
Sarah J. White University of Leicester

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

If you're considering a degree in psychology, you may also be interested in related online programs, such as social work. Social work and psychology share foundational skills of helping others, empathetic communication, and applied research. Earning your degree online offers flexibility to balance studies with other commitments, while opening the door to various rewarding careers.

There are many reputable paths you can take. For example, the top online social work programs in Waco provide a blend of innovative coursework and hands-on experience. Students in the South might consider the top social work programs in Alabama or the top social work programs in Arkansas for regionally tailored training and local networking opportunities.

In the Midwest, aspiring professionals can explore the best social work degree programs in Columbus, which are known for strong academic support and diverse learning environments. Whichever path you choose, related online degrees can lead to impactful roles in counseling, case management, school services, and more.

Best Scientists Citing Ruth Filik

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles