Melanie Lean

1.6k citations
13 papers · 367 · h-index 8

Impact in

Papers in

Melanie Lean

11 papers receiving 354 citations

Peers

Melanie Lean
Comparison fields: 5 of 63
  • Clinical Psychology 166
  • Psychiatry and Mental health 118
  • General Health Professions 180
  • Applied Psychology 23
  • Social Psychology 87
Replace Penny Xanthopoulou with:
Penny Xanthopoulou United Kingdom
Mami Kayama Japan
Rikke Jørgensen Denmark
Michael Scherer‐Rath Netherlands
Markku Ojanen Finland
Margot J. Metz Netherlands
Kim Dent‐Brown United Kingdom
Anne‐Mei The Netherlands
Saeid Pahlavanzadeh Iran
Leonardo Koeser United Kingdom
Melanie Lean relative to Penny Xanthopoulou United Kingdom Penny Xanthopoulou's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.8×
Penny Xanthopoulou · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Melanie Lean

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Melanie Lean

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

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

All Works

13 of 13 papers shown
#Work
1 2019109
2 200364
3 201256
4 201538
5 201634
6 201524
7 201622
8 20248
9 20177
10 20204
11 20211
12 20250
13 20210

About Melanie Lean

Melanie Lean is a scholar working on Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental health, General Health Professions, Social Psychology and Organic Chemistry, having authored 13 papers that have together received 367 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Schizophrenia research and treatment (7 papers), Mental Health and Patient Involvement (6 papers), Psychiatric care and mental health services (5 papers), Mental Health Treatment and Access (5 papers), Psychedelics and Drug Studies (2 papers), Mental Health and Psychiatry (2 papers), Chemical synthesis and alkaloids (2 papers) and Health Policy Implementation Science (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Clinical Psychology (166 citations), Psychiatry and Mental health (118 citations), General Health Professions (180 citations), Applied Psychology (23 citations) and Social Psychology (87 citations). Melanie Lean has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and South Korea. Frequent co-authors include Helen Killaspy, Louise Marston, Tim Kendall, Brynmor Lloyd‐Evans, Nicholas Green, Frank Holloway, Amina Yesufu-Udechuku, Alyssa Milton, Sonia Johnson and Tom Craig. Their work appears in journals such as BMC Psychiatry, Journal of Affective Disorders, The British Journal of Psychiatry, Early Intervention in Psychiatry and The Lancet 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