Emma E. Thomas

722 citations
26 papers · 483 · h-index 15

Impact in

Papers in

Emma E. Thomas

24 papers receiving 472 citations

Peers

Emma E. Thomas
Comparison fields: 5 of 66
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 271
  • Clinical Psychology 179
  • Psychiatry and Mental health 106
  • Pharmacy 21
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 49
Replace Kelsie Boulton with:
Kelsie Boulton Australia
Jill Lorenzi United States
Shinichiro Takiguchi Japan
Giora Galili Israel
Brendan Ostlund United States
Deanna Swain United States
Megan Klabunde United States
Lindsay Olson United States
Dora Isabel Lozano United States
Carla A. Hitchcock United States
Emma E. Thomas relative to Kelsie Boulton Australia Kelsie Boulton's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.5×
Kelsie Boulton · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Emma E. Thomas

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Emma E. Thomas

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Emma E. Thomas. 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 Emma E. Thomas. The network helps show where Emma E. Thomas may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Emma E. Thomas, 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 Emma E. Thomas Line = papers co-authored together Emma E. Thomas links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 26 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201956
2 202055
3 201950
4 202245
5 202133
6 201932
7 201832
8 201830
9 202029
10 202222
11 202117
12 201916
13 202015
14 202114
15 202014
16 20234
17 20224
18 20243
19 20253
20 20213

About Emma E. Thomas

Emma E. Thomas is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental health, Genetics and Social Psychology, having authored 26 papers that have together received 483 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Autism Spectrum Disorder Research (15 papers), Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development (8 papers), Family and Disability Support Research (5 papers), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (5 papers), Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders (3 papers), Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues (3 papers), Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control (2 papers) and Child Development and Digital Technology (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Cognitive Neuroscience (271 citations), Clinical Psychology (179 citations), Psychiatry and Mental health (106 citations), Pharmacy (21 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (49 citations). Emma E. Thomas has collaborated with scholars based in Australia, United States and Canada. Frequent co-authors include Adam J. Guastella, Ian B. Hickie, Shin Park, Karen L. Pepper, Yun Ju Christine Song, Eleni Demetriou, Kelsie Boulton, Marilena M. DeMayo, Izabella Pokorski and Sharon L. Naismith. Their work appears in journals such as Autism Research, Autism, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Translational Psychiatry and Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

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