World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
47
Citations
9420
World Ranking
6156
National Ranking
50

Wim De Neys 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 Wim De Neys 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: 135 publications — 41st percentile

41% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Wim De Neys 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 Wim De Neys 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: 47 D-Index — 47th percentile

47% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Wim De Neys is affiliated with Université Paris Cité in France and has contributed extensively to the study of decision sciences, with a particular focus on cognitive processes involved in thinking and reasoning. Their research addresses a broad spectrum of topics within decision-making and behavioral economics, as well as associated fields such as cognitive neuroscience and applied psychology.

The main fields of study linked to De Neys include:

  • Decision Sciences

Within this, they have worked in several subfields:

  • General Decision Sciences
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Safety Research
  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Applied Psychology

Their research topics span:

  • Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Complex Systems and Decision Making
  • Cognitive Science and Mapping
  • Child and Animal Learning Development

Among recent publications authored or co-authored by Wim De Neys are:

  • Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking, 2022, Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • On Dual- and Single-Process Models of Thinking, 2021, Perspectives on Psychological Science
  • From bias to sound intuiting: Boosting correct intuitive reasoning, 2021, Cognition

Other recent papers where De Neys contributed include:

  • The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking, 2020, Cognition
  • Predicting individual differences in conflict detection and bias susceptibility during reasoning, 2020, Thinking & Reasoning

Wim De Neys has frequently published in the following venues:

  • Thinking & Reasoning
  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • Cognition
  • Acta Psychologica

The scientist has collaborated often with several co-authors, including:

  • Esther Boissin
  • Serge Caparos
  • Matthieu Raoelison
  • Aikaterini Voudouri
  • Grégoire Borst

Best Publications

  • Dual Processing in Reasoning Two Systems but One Reasoner

    Wim De Neys

  • Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking.

    Wim De Neys;Tamara Glumicic

  • Bias and Conflict A Case for Logical Intuitions

    Wim De Neys

  • Smarter Than We Think When Our Brains Detect That We Are Biased

    Wim De Neys;Oshin Vartanian;Vinod Goel

  • Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory.

    Bence Bago;Wim De Neys;Wim De Neys

  • Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations.

    Wim De Neys

  • When people are more logical under cognitive load: dual task impact on scalar implicature.

    Wim De Neys;Walter Schaeken

  • Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications

    Wim De Neys

  • Biased but in doubt: conflict and decision confidence.

    Wim De Neys;Sofie Cromheeke;Magda Osman

  • Logic, Fast and Slow: Advances in Dual-Process Theorizing:

    Wim De Neys;Gordon Pennycook

  • Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools.

    Wim De Neys;Sandrine Rossi;Sandrine Rossi;Sandrine Rossi;Olivier Houdé;Olivier Houdé;Olivier Houdé

  • The Smart System 1: evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem

    Bence Bago;Wim De Neys

  • Feeling we're biased: autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict.

    Wim De Neys;Elke Moyens;Debora Vansteenwegen

  • Working memory and everyday conditional reasoning: Retrieval and inhibition of stored counterexamples

    Wim De Neys;Walter Schaeken;Géry d'Ydewalle

  • Mortality salience and morality: Thinking about death makes people less utilitarian

    Bastien Trémolière;Wim De Neys;Wim De Neys;Jean-François Bonnefon;Jean-François Bonnefon

  • Belief inhibition during thinking: not always winning but at least taking part.

    Wim De Neys;Samuel Franssens

  • The Modular Nature of Trustworthiness Detection

    Jean-François Bonnefon;Astrid Hopfensitz;Wim De Neys

  • Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking

    Unknown

  • The ‘whys’ and ‘whens’ of individual differences in thinking biases

    Wim De Neys;Wim De Neys;Wim De Neys;Jean-François Bonnefon;Jean-François Bonnefon

  • Inference suppression and semantic memory retrieval: every counterexample counts.

    Wim De Neys;Walter Schaeken;Géry D’Ydewalle

  • The effortless nature of conflict detection during thinking

    Samuel Franssens;Wim De Neys

Frequent Co-Authors

Oshin Vartanian
Oshin Vartanian University of Toronto
Valerie A. Thompson
Valerie A. Thompson University of Saskatchewan
Gordon Pennycook
Gordon Pennycook Cornell University
Keith E. Stanovich
Keith E. Stanovich University of Toronto
Henry Markovits
Henry Markovits University of Quebec at Montreal
Jonathan St. B. T. Evans
Jonathan St. B. T. Evans Plymouth 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

Pursuing a degree in Psychology can open the door to a variety of fulfilling online career pathways, including roles in social work. Each state sets its own minimum degree requirements for social workers, and these often influence your options as a Psychology graduate.

For instance, those interested in working in the Northeast should be aware of the New Jersey minimum degree requirement for social workers as well as the New York education requirements for social workers. Both states typically require at least a bachelor’s degree, but often a Master of Social Work (MSW) is necessary for advanced positions and licensure.

If you’re considering work in other regions, it’s important to review the North Carolina education requirements for social workers and the social worker degree requirements in New Mexico. Similar patterns emerge, with an undergraduate degree serving as the baseline, but advanced practice and licensure often requiring a graduate degree.

As online education grows, accredited programs now offer Psychology and social work degrees that can meet licensure requirements in many states. Be sure to check state-specific guidelines before choosing your pathway.

Best Scientists Citing Wim De Neys

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles