Emily Bold

907 citations
8 papers · 422 · 1 hit paper · h-index 6

Impact in

Papers in

Emily Bold

8 papers receiving 406 citations

Emily Bold's Hit Papers

Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England 2020 · 341 citations
3410+2+4Years since publication100200300

Peers

Emily Bold
Comparison fields: 5 of 56
  • Health 205
  • Modeling and Simulation 33
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 111
  • Sociology and Political Science 240
  • Clinical Psychology 110
Replace Chiara Causier with:
Chiara Causier United Kingdom
Cheng‐Fang Yen Taiwan
Tarek Bellaj Qatar
Alessandra Tasso Italy
Irena Pavela Banai Croatia
Agnieszka E. Łyś Poland
Ayokunle Olagoke United States
Gaëlle Marinthe France
Jacob Miller United States
Marta Caserotti Italy
Emily Bold relative to Chiara Causier United Kingdom Chiara Causier's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Chiara Causier · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Emily Bold

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Emily Bold'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 Emily Bold with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Emily Bold more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Emily Bold

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Emily Bold. 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 Emily Bold. The network helps show where Emily Bold may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 16 scholars most cited alongside Emily Bold, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Emily Bold Line = papers co-authored together Emily Bold links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

8 of 8 papers shown
#Work
1
Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England
Hit paper breakdown →
2020341
2 201943
3 201912
4 20198
5 20228
6 20225
7 20204
8 20221

About Emily Bold

Emily Bold is a scholar working on Psychiatry and Mental health, Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology and Philosophy, having authored 8 papers that have together received 422 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments (5 papers), Schizophrenia research and treatment (3 papers), Mental Health and Psychiatry (2 papers), Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies (2 papers), Eating Disorders and Behaviors (2 papers), Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes (2 papers), Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis (1 paper) and Mental Health Research Topics (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Health (205 citations), Modeling and Simulation (33 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (111 citations), Sociology and Political Science (240 citations) and Clinical Psychology (110 citations). Emily Bold has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Felicity Waite, Chiara Causier, Daniel Freeman, Eleanor Chadwick, Nicola Collett, Emma Černis, Louise Isham, Jessica C. Bird, Kathryn M. Taylor and Louise Johns. Their work appears in journals such as BJPsych Open, Schizophrenia Bulletin, Mental health and physical activity, Psychiatry Research and Comprehensive 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact