The medrxix example is a preprint, not peer-reviewed. Why did you not point that out? And her name appears second-to-last in the authors' list.

The Lancet example is some BBC stuff, and has her name appear down near the end of the authors' list. And the contributors' section does not seem to list her as a primary author, she did not design the analysis, nor develop the model.

The Nature example indicates in the Author Contributions section that she only did some additional contributions, nothing core. Her name is not near the start of the long list of authors.

That leaves the 2 papers from 2013 and 2016, closer to the beginning of her career. Her name does not appear first in either, but she was presumably a major author in both.

The spatio-temporal aspects of some of the papers seem neat.

There is an annoyingly large amount of statistics involved, and statistics is again one of those fields that do not always have the best of reputations ("lies, damned lies, and statistics"). In part because statistical models, results, etc. can be difficult to verify the correctness of. Unlike for instance some kinds of experimental physics, where if something is wrong, the experiment can easily fail in many cases. Or in multiple kinds of engineering, where if something is wrong, there can be very practical consequences, and those consequences are often encountered sooner rather than later. In my experience, physicists are often better than mathematicians at mathematics, in part because phycisists cannot as often bullshit their way through things, which filters people and also lets phycisists test, train and improve themselves. Ironically, proper statistics is in some ways harder because of this than some other disciplines, because statistics requires greater honesty, discipline and competence due to statistics often being difficult to verify correctness of.

Also consider stuff like the reproducibility crisis and various scandals:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48568058

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42284173

Nothing among the papers you listed that really seems to push the boundaries of science. A lot of models, statistics, data gathering and such.

Do you have more papers? With this admittedly tiny selection, excluding the preprint stuff, she seems to have done more research work earlier in her career, and none of the examples list her as the first author.

I actually have a worse impression of her now that I have seen the papers you listed. Ignoring the preprint paper you listed.

Hannah Fry Wins the Leelavati Prize in 2026 for Mathematics Outreach