Paul Duncan‐Jones
- Clinical Psychology top 1%
- Social Psychology top 1%
- General Health Professions top 1%
- Health top 0.5%
- Psychiatry and Mental health top 1%
- Co-authors
- Scott HendersonD. G. ByrneDavid GraysonK. BridgesDavid GoldbergRuth ScottSylvia AdcockR. Scott
- Topics
- Health disparities and outcomes (10 papers)Attachment and Relationship Dynamics (7 papers)Mental Health Treatment and Access (6 papers)
- Partner nations
- AustraliaUnited StatesUnited Kingdom
In The Last Decade
Paul Duncan‐Jones
34 papers receiving 3.7k citations
Hit Papers
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 143
- Clinical Psychology 1.6k
- Social Psychology 1.2k
- General Health Professions 1.1k
- Health 898
- Psychiatry and Mental health 814
Countries citing papers authored by Paul Duncan‐Jones
This map shows the geographic impact of Paul Duncan‐Jones'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 Paul Duncan‐Jones with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Paul Duncan‐Jones more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Paul Duncan‐Jones
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Paul Duncan‐Jones. 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 Paul Duncan‐Jones. The network helps show where Paul Duncan‐Jones may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Paul Duncan‐Jones
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Paul Duncan‐Jones. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Paul Duncan‐Jones 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 Paul Duncan‐Jones. Paul Duncan‐Jones is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 | |
| 2 | 106 | |
| 3 | 116 | |
| 4 | 89 | |
| 5 | Detecting anxiety and depression in general medical settings.breakdown → | 973 |
| 6 | 56 | |
| 7 | 23 | |
| 8 | 77 | |
| 9 | 32 | |
| 10 | Neurosis and the Social Environmentbreakdown → | 621 |
| 11 | 21 | |
| 12 | 11 | |
| 13 | 27 | |
| 14 | 403 | |
| 15 | 3 | |
| 16 | 13 | |
| 17 | 172 | |
| 18 | 31 | |
| 19 | 11 | |
| 20 | 6 |
About Paul Duncan‐Jones
Paul Duncan‐Jones is a scholar working on Health, Social Psychology and Clinical Psychology, having authored 35 papers that have together received 4.0k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Health disparities and outcomes (10 papers), Attachment and Relationship Dynamics (7 papers) and Mental Health Treatment and Access (6 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Health (898 citations), Clinical Psychology (1.6k citations) and Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology (116 citations). Paul Duncan‐Jones has collaborated with scholars based in Australia, United States and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Scott Henderson, D. G. Byrne, David Grayson, K. Bridges, David Goldberg, Ruth Scott, Sylvia Adcock, R. Scott, Karen Ritchie and A. S. Henderson. Their work appears in journals such as American Journal of Sociology, The British Journal of Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine.
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.