Nina Schnyder
- Social Psychology top 5%
- Clinical Psychology top 5%
- General Health Professions top 10%
- Applied Psychology top 10%
- Sociology and Political Science
- Co-authors
- Frauke Schultze‐LutterRadoslaw PanczakNicola GrothChantal MichelStefanie J. SchmidtMichael KaessAndjela MarkovicMeredith Harris
- Topics
- Mental Health Treatment and Access (5 papers)Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development (5 papers)Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology (2 papers)
- Partner nations
- SwitzerlandGermanyAustralia
In The Last Decade
Nina Schnyder
10 papers receiving 581 citations
Hit Papers
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 72
- Social Psychology 353
- Clinical Psychology 352
- General Health Professions 167
- Applied Psychology 76
- Sociology and Political Science 65
Countries citing papers authored by Nina Schnyder
This map shows the geographic impact of Nina Schnyder'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 Nina Schnyder with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Nina Schnyder more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Nina Schnyder
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Nina Schnyder. 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 Nina Schnyder. The network helps show where Nina Schnyder may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Nina Schnyder
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Nina Schnyder. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Nina Schnyder 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 Nina Schnyder. Nina Schnyder is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 3 | 2 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 5 | 12 | |
| 6 | 32 | |
| 7 | 6 | |
| 8 | 61 | |
| 9 | 27 | |
| 10 | 20 | |
| 11 | Association of clinical high risk symptoms with general health and well-being in the community | 0 |
| 12 | Association between mental health-related stigma and active help-seeking: Systematic review and meta-analysisbreakdown → | 428 |
About Nina Schnyder
Nina Schnyder is a scholar working on Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology and Health, having authored 12 papers that have together received 591 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Mental Health Treatment and Access (5 papers), Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development (5 papers) and Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Social Psychology (353 citations), Clinical Psychology (352 citations) and Applied Psychology (76 citations). Nina Schnyder has collaborated with scholars based in Switzerland, Germany and Australia. Frequent co-authors include Frauke Schultze‐Lutter, Radoslaw Panczak, Nicola Groth, Chantal Michel, Stefanie J. Schmidt, Michael Kaess, Andjela Markovic, Meredith Harris, Liz Rietschel and David Lawrence. Their work appears in journals such as The British Journal of Psychiatry, Behaviour Research and Therapy and BMC Psychiatry.
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.