David Dias Neto
- Clinical Psychology
- Applied Psychology top 10%
- Social Psychology
- General Health Professions
- Sociology and Political Science
- Co-authors
- Maria João FigueirasAna Nunes da SilvaTine NordgreenStefan HöferDavid Daniel EbertMaria KareklaTom Van DaeleJoão Marôco
- Topics
- COVID-19 and Mental Health (7 papers)Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications (6 papers)Mental Health Treatment and Access (6 papers)
- Journals
- SHILAP Revista de lepidopterologíaInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthFrontiers in Psychology
- Partner nations
- PortugalCyprusSwitzerland
In The Last Decade
David Dias Neto
33 papers receiving 180 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 64
- Clinical Psychology 94
- Applied Psychology 55
- Social Psychology 43
- General Health Professions 43
- Sociology and Political Science 29
Countries citing papers authored by David Dias Neto
This map shows the geographic impact of David Dias Neto's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by David Dias Neto with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David Dias Neto more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by David Dias Neto
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David Dias Neto. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by David Dias Neto. The network helps show where David Dias Neto may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David Dias Neto
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David Dias Neto. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David Dias Neto based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with David Dias Neto. David Dias Neto is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 3 | 3 | |
| 4 | 2 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1 | |
| 7 | 0 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 9 | 2 | |
| 10 | 7 | |
| 11 | 2 | |
| 12 | 0 | |
| 13 | 9 | |
| 14 | 2 | |
| 15 | 1 | |
| 16 | 2 | |
| 17 | 9 | |
| 18 | 1 | |
| 19 | 3 | |
| 20 | 6 |
About David Dias Neto
David Dias Neto is a scholar working on Clinical Psychology, Applied Psychology and General Psychology, having authored 36 papers that have together received 183 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include COVID-19 and Mental Health (7 papers), Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications (6 papers) and Mental Health Treatment and Access (6 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Applied Psychology (55 citations), Clinical Psychology (94 citations) and Social Psychology (43 citations). David Dias Neto has collaborated with scholars based in Portugal, Cyprus and Switzerland. Frequent co-authors include Maria João Figueiras, Ana Nunes da Silva, Tine Nordgreen, Stefan Höfer, David Daniel Ebert, Maria Karekla, Tom Van Daele, João Marôco, Elisa Kern de Castro and Patrícia Tavares. Their work appears in journals such as SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and Frontiers in Psychology.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.