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 37 6213 5770 446 429 128 6409

Tyler G. Okimoto publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Tyler G. Okimoto between 2003 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Tyler G. Okimoto published across 23 years, from 2003 to 2025, averaging 6 papers a year. Output peaked at 11 publications in 2021. 15 of the 139 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
2 4 6 8 10
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2003 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 11. Peak 11 publications in 2021. 2003: 1 publication 2004: 1 publication 2005: 1 publication 2006: 4 publications 2007: 8 publications 2008: 5 publications 2009: 5 publications 2010: 7 publications 2011: 5 publications 2012: 6 publications 2013: 7 publications 2014: 8 publications 2015: 9 publications 2016: 7 publications 2017: 7 publications 2018: 5 publications 2019: 5 publications 2020: 8 publications 2021: 11 publications 2022: 4 publications 2023: 10 publications 2024: 6 publications 2025: 9 publications
2003 2025

139 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Tyler G. Okimoto: publications per year, 2003 to 2025
Year Publications
2003 1
2004 1
2005 1
2006 4
2007 8
2008 5
2009 5
2010 7
2011 5
2012 6
2013 7
2014 8
2015 9
2016 7
2017 7
2018 5
2019 5
2020 8
2021 11
2022 4
2023 10
2024 6
2025 9
Total 139
Download as CSV

Tyler G. Okimoto 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 Tyler G. Okimoto 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, 124–133 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: 128 publications — 29th percentile

29% 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
124–133 453 128
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
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

Tyler G. Okimoto 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 Tyler G. Okimoto 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, 37 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: 37 D-Index — 23rd percentile

23% 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 37
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
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

Tyler G. Okimoto is affiliated with the University of Queensland in Australia. Their research primarily focuses on social sciences and psychology, contributing extensively to subfields including social psychology, sociology and political science, gender studies, organizational behavior and human resource management, and clinical psychology.

Their work spans a range of main topics such as forgiveness and related behaviors, job satisfaction and organizational behavior, gender diversity and inequality, social and intergroup psychology, emotions and moral behavior, international student and expatriate challenges, and criminal justice and corrections analysis.

Frequent publication venues for Okimoto include the Academy of Management Proceedings, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Human Resource Management, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, and the European Journal of Social Psychology.

Okimoto has coauthored multiple papers with several colleagues, including Michael Wenzel, Michael Thai, Lydia Woodyatt, Blake Quinney, and Elena Zubielevitch.

Representative recent papers by Okimoto include:

  • "Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting" (2020), published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
  • "Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit" (2020), published in Science Advances
  • "Knowing me, knowing us: Personal and collective self-awareness enhances authentic leadership and leader endorsement" (2021), published in The Leadership Quarterly
  • "Dynamics of Moral Repair: Forgiveness, Self-Forgiveness, and the Restoration of Value Consensus as Interdependent Processes" (2020), published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
  • "Intercultural contacts and acculturation resources among International students in Australia: A mixed-methods study" (2020), published in International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Best Publications

  • Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: the implied communality deficit.

    Madeline E. Heilman;Tyler G. Okimoto

  • Retributive and restorative justice

    Michael Wenzel;Tyler G. Okimoto;Norman T. Feather;Michael J. Platow

  • Motherhood: A Potential Source of Bias in Employment Decisions

    Madeline E. Heilman;Tyler G. Okimoto

  • The Price of Power: Power Seeking and Backlash Against Female Politicians

    Tyler G. Okimoto;Victoria L. Brescoll

  • Cultural intelligence: A theory-based, short form measure

    David C. Thomas;Yuan Liao;Zeynep Aycan;Jean Luc Cerdin

  • How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions

    Michael Wenzel;Tyler Gene Okimoto

  • Punitive versus compensatory reactions to injustice: Emotional antecedents to third-party interventions

    Sebastian Lotz;Sebastian Lotz;Tyler G. Okimoto;Thomas Schlösser;Detlef Fetchenhauer

  • The “Bad Parent” Assumption: How Gender Stereotypes Affect Reactions to Working Mothers

    Tyler G. Okimoto;Madeline E. Heilman

  • Beyond retribution: Conceptualizing restorative justice and exploring its determinants

    Tyler Okimoto;Michael Wenzel;Norman Feather

  • True to what We stand for: Championing collective interests as a path to authentic leadership

    Niklas K. Steffens;Frank Mols;S. Alexander Haslam;Tyler G. Okimoto

  • You've Come a Long Way…Maybe: How Moral Emotions Trigger Backlash Against Women Leaders

    Victoria L. Brescoll;Tyler G. Okimoto;Andrea C. Vial

  • The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration

    Tyler Gene Okimoto;Michael Wenzel

  • Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform

    Tyler G. Okimoto;Michael Wenzel

  • Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

    Michael Wenzel;Tyler Gene Okimoto;Norman Thomas Feather;M J Platow

  • Retribution and Restoration as General Orientations Towards Justice

    Tyler Okimoto;Tyler Okimoto;Michael Wenzel;Norman Feather

  • Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding)

    Tyler G. Okimoto;Michael Wenzel;Kyli Hedrick

  • Is Compensation Enough? Relational Concerns in Responding to Unintended Inequity

    Tyler G. Okimoto;Tom R. Tyler

  • Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

    Tania Reynolds;Tania Reynolds;Chuck Howard;Hallgeir Sjåstad;Luke Zhu

  • Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit.

    Dana Kanze;Mark A. Conley;Tyler G. Okimoto;Damon J. Phillips

  • Apologies Demanded yet Devalued: Normative Dilution in the Age of Apology

    Tyler Gene Okimoto;Michael Wenzel;Matthew J Hornsey

  • Knowing me, knowing us: Personal and collective self-awareness enhances authentic leadership and leader endorsement

    Niklas K. Steffens;Nathan Wolyniec;Tyler G. Okimoto;Frank Mols

  • Third-party punishment and symbolic intragroup status

    Tyler G. Okimoto;Michael Wenzel

Frequent Co-Authors

Michael Wenzel
Michael Wenzel Flinders University
Matthew J. Hornsey
Matthew J. Hornsey University of Queensland
Norman T. Feather
Norman T. Feather Flinders University
Michael J. Platow
Michael J. Platow Australian National University
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Fons J. R. van de Vijver Tilburg University
Madeline E. Heilman
Madeline E. Heilman New York University
Charmine E. J. Härtel
Charmine E. J. Härtel Monash University
Karl Aquino
Karl Aquino University of British Columbia
Roy F. Baumeister
Roy F. Baumeister University of Queensland
Niklas K. Steffens
Niklas K. Steffens University of Queensland

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

The fields of Social Sciences and Humanities are rapidly adapting to online education, offering adaptable degree options and new career opportunities. Many students are choosing online programs as a flexible pathway into professions such as mental health, social work, and counseling.

For those interested in counseling, it's crucial to select programs with cacrep accreditation to ensure your degree meets industry standards. Individuals aiming for roles as licensed therapists may consider pursuing a marriage and family therapist degree online, providing a pathway to help communities and families.

Psychology remains one of the most versatile disciplines. Earning a psychology degree online can lead to careers in human resources, counseling, market research, and more. For those passionate about advocacy and support work, exploring the msw degree online option is a smart choice, opening doors to positions in social services and non-profit organizations.

By choosing an accredited, flexible online program, students in the Social Sciences and Humanities can prepare for meaningful and in-demand roles across a wide range of settings.

Best Scientists Citing Tyler G. Okimoto

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles