Rising Stars of Science World Ranking 2022 (1st Edition)

by Imed Bouchrika, PhD

Co-Founder and Chief Data Scientist

Share

The 2022 Research.com Rising Stars of Science ranking highlights early-career researchers whose work had already attracted notable academic attention. If you are a student, doctoral candidate, postdoc, faculty member, research administrator, or funding decision-maker, this ranking can help you spot where emerging scientific influence is concentrated and how it may shape future collaboration, hiring, and training decisions.

This guide breaks down what the ranking measures, how it was compiled, which countries and institutions stood out, and how to use it without overreading the numbers. You will also find practical advice on choosing research training, evaluating academic pathways, and understanding what rankings can and cannot tell you about long-term scientific impact.

Quick answer: what does the 2022 Rising Stars of Science ranking show?

The 2022 Research.com ranking identifies scientists who published their first paper less than 13 years ago and still met strong, discipline-specific impact thresholds. Research.com screened more than 166,880 scientist profiles from Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Graph, then used multiple measures, including h-index, field contribution share, and recognized achievements, to build the final list.

At the top of the ranking was Mohsen Sheikholeslami of Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Iran, with an h-index of 126. China had the largest national representation with 344 listed scientists, followed by the USA with 209 and Iran with 44. The Chinese Academy of Sciences was the most represented institution, with 25 affiliated scientists in the ranking.

What the ranking is designed to measure

This list is not a simple citation leaderboard. It is meant to surface researchers who are still relatively early in their careers but have already produced work with substantial scholarly reach. That makes the ranking especially useful for people trying to identify new leaders in science rather than established senior figures.

For readers comparing graduate schools, research groups, or collaboration opportunities, the ranking can serve as a starting point. It should not be treated as a complete measure of research quality, teaching ability, mentorship, or long-term promise.

How the 2022 ranking was built

Research.com reviewed more than 166,880 scientist profiles listed in Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Graph before producing the final list. The process used more than one metric so the ranking would reflect broader research influence rather than a single data point.

Researchers were only considered if their first paper was published less than 13 years ago. Field-based thresholds also mattered. In most disciplines, the h-index cutoff for consideration was 30 or 40, and researchers also needed to satisfy additional conditions tied to citation influence, disciplinary contribution, and achievements.

That approach makes the list more useful for identifying emerging scholars with proven research momentum, but it also means the ranking is discipline-sensitive. A strong profile in one field may not be directly comparable with a strong profile in another.

Key findings from the 2022 ranking

• Mohsen Sheikholeslami of Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Iran, ranked first overall with an h-index of 126.
• 4 out of 10 scientists in the top 10 were affiliated with institutions in China, and 2 were affiliated with institutions in the USA.
• China had the largest representation overall, with 344 scientists, or 34.4% of the ranking.
• The USA followed with 209 scientists, or 20.9%.
• Iran placed third with 44 scientists, or 4.4%.
• The Chinese Academy of Sciences had the largest institutional presence, with 25 affiliated scientists.
• Gregory A. Roth of the University of Washington recorded the highest citation count in the ranking, with 142,304 citations.
• The average H-index was 93 for the top 1% of scientists and 45 for the top 1000 scientists included in the ranking.

The complete 2022 list is available here:

Rising Stars of Science Ranking

Which countries had the strongest representation?

China had the largest number of scientists in the 2022 ranking with 344 listed scholars, equal to 34.4% of the total list. Its strength also showed near the top of the ranking: 4 out of 10 scientists in the top 10 were affiliated with Chinese institutions.

The United States ranked second with 209 scientists, or 20.9% of the ranking. Iran ranked third with 44 scientists, or 4.4%.

Other countries with notable representation included Australia with 41 scientists, Germany with 38, the UK with 34, India with 19, and Singapore with 19.

The country assigned to each scientist reflects the affiliated research institution recorded in MAG, not necessarily the scientist’s nationality.

Which institutions appeared most often?

The Chinese Academy of Sciences led the institutional ranking with 25 affiliated scientists. Hunan University in China followed with 12, and Google ranked third with 10.

Among the top 10 institutions, Chinese universities and research organizations accounted for half of the entries. Institutions in the USA made up 30% of the top 10, while the remaining leading institutions were located in Singapore and Australia, including the University of Technology Sydney and Nanyang Technological University.

How to use the ranking if you are planning a research career

For early-career researchers, the ranking is most useful as a signal of where research momentum is building. It can help you identify active fields, compare potential mentors, and understand which institutions are supporting strong publication records.

It is less useful as a shortcut for choosing a career path. A high-ranking scientist may be a great collaborator or mentor, but that does not automatically make their institution the best fit for your goals, funding situation, or preferred research style.

Practical ways to use the ranking

1. Look for recurring themes. See whether the listed researchers cluster around particular methods, subfields, or institutions.
2. Check research fit. A good collaboration should match your topic, methods, and timeline—not just your desire to work with a well-known name.
3. Study career patterns. Notice whether the scientists’ paths include graduate training, international collaboration, or specialized technical work that you can also build.
4. Use it to identify mentors. The ranking can point you toward researchers with active publication records and visible scholarly influence.
5. Pair it with field-specific evidence. Read recent papers, grant histories, lab pages, and placement outcomes before making any decision.

Which academic pathways can support early research impact?

Strong research output usually comes from a mix of training, mentorship, infrastructure, and time. Students who want to build early research influence often need advanced methods training, access to specialized tools or datasets, and a department or lab that supports publication.

If you are still deciding how far to go academically, reviewing masters degree options can help you determine whether a specialized master’s degree is enough for your goals or whether you need a doctoral program for independent research work.

When an accelerated doctorate can be worth considering

Accelerated doctoral pathways appeal to researchers who already have strong preparation and want to move quickly toward publication, postdoctoral work, grant eligibility, or faculty hiring. A shorter route can be helpful when the student already has a clear topic, strong academic background, and a discipline that supports streamlined progress.

That said, faster is not always better. Condensed doctoral programs may leave less room for exploration, changing research direction, or extended mentoring. Before choosing one, check dissertation expectations, faculty availability, research resources, completion rules, and how the format is viewed in your field. Students comparing short routes can also review Research.com’s guide to What is the easiest doctorate to get? for a broader look at program length and trade-offs.

How online and accelerated formats can help with skill-building

Online and accelerated programs can be useful for researchers who need to keep working, caring for family, or continuing lab or field responsibilities while studying. Their value depends on the discipline. A computational researcher may gain a lot from online training, while a laboratory scientist may still need access to on-campus facilities and in-person supervision.

Even an entry-level program can help build momentum. Readers who want to start with a shorter credential can review options such as the fastest associates degree online before moving into higher-level study.

How rankings can affect collaboration decisions

Rankings can help universities, funders, and other researchers identify people whose work is gaining attention early in their careers. For the scientist being ranked, that visibility may open the door to conference invitations, joint projects, peer review opportunities, and grant partnerships.

Still, a ranking should never be the only reason to pursue a collaboration. Research fit, ethics, authorship expectations, data access, communication habits, and timeline reliability matter just as much as citation performance.

Researchers who want a narrow skills upgrade before entering an interdisciplinary project may want to compare online graduate certificate programs, especially if they need a specific competency rather than a new degree.

How digital learning can complement research training

Digital learning is most valuable when it fills a specific gap. That could mean learning a programming language, strengthening statistical methods, improving scientific writing, understanding commercialization, or getting exposed to a neighboring discipline.

Online study can also make sense for learners balancing research with military service, family duties, or full-time work. Students and professionals with military backgrounds can compare options through Research.com’s guide to online colleges for military.

Regional leaders, citation patterns, and what the numbers suggest

Regional rankings show that scientific influence in the 2022 list was spread across multiple continents, not concentrated in one area alone. They also show that early impact can take different forms depending on field, institution, and research network.

In Asia, Professor Mohsen Sheikholeslami of Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Iran, led the region and ranked no. 1 worldwide with an H-index of 126.

In North America, Professor Matthew D. Hellmann of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States, ranked first in the region and no. 2 worldwide with an h-index of 97.

In Europe, Professor Giovanni Benelli of the University of Pisa, Italy, led the regional list and ranked 8 worldwide with an h-index of 85.

In Africa, Professor K. Kaviyarasu of iThemba LABS, South Africa, was the highest-ranked scientist, with a world ranking of 18.

In Oceania, Professor Alexander M. Menzies of the University of Sydney, Australia, ranked first in the region and no. 41 worldwide.

In South America, Professor José C. S. dos Santos of Universidade Federal do Ceara, Brazil, was the top-ranked scientist, with a world ranking of 230.

The average H-index was 93 among the top 1% of scientists, compared with 45 among the top 1000 scientists in the ranking. The lowest h-index among scientists included in the 2022 ranking was 32.

The top 1% of scientists averaged 346 published articles and 45,599 citations, while the top 1000 scholars averaged 148 articles and 10,138 citations. Gregory A. Roth of the University of Washington had the highest citation count, with 142,304 citations.

You can review the ranking methodology in more detail here.

Common mistakes when interpreting scientist rankings

• Using the h-index as the whole story. It reflects citation influence, but it does not capture originality, teaching, mentorship, reproducibility, or social value.
• Comparing fields too casually. Citation patterns vary a lot across disciplines, so direct comparisons can be misleading.
• Assuming country labels describe nationality. This ranking uses affiliated research institution data from MAG, not the scientist’s citizenship.
• Reading the list as a guarantee of future success. Early impact matters, but future output depends on funding, collaboration quality, institutional support, and field changes.
• Picking a graduate program based on one prominent researcher alone. Program fit, funding, resources, and completion expectations matter too.

Questions students and early-career researchers should ask

• Which output matters most in my field: journal articles, conference papers, patents, clinical outcomes, software, data sets, or policy work?
• What training do I still need before I can produce publishable independent research?
• Which mentors are both subject experts and effective supporters of early-career scholars?
• Would a master’s degree, doctoral program, certificate, or short technical course solve my current gap best?
• How will I judge research impact without relying on one number?
• Which collaborations would broaden my methods, data access, or disciplinary reach?

Key insights

• The 2022 Research.com Rising Stars of Science ranking highlights researchers who published their first paper less than 13 years ago and already met strong discipline-specific impact thresholds.
• China led the ranking with 344 scientists, or 34.4% of the list, while the USA followed with 209 scientists, or 20.9%.
• Mohsen Sheikholeslami ranked no. 1 overall with an h-index of 126, and Gregory A. Roth had the highest citation count at 142,304 citations.
• The Chinese Academy of Sciences had the largest institutional presence, with 25 affiliated scientists included in the 2022 list.
• The ranking is useful for spotting emerging influence, but it should be interpreted alongside field norms, research quality, mentorship fit, and institutional context.
• If you are planning your own path, focus on building strong methods, choosing the right training level, and making collaboration decisions based on research fit—not prestige alone.

About Research.com

Research for this ranking was coordinated by Imed Bouchrika, Ph.D., a computer scientist with extensive experience collaborating on international research projects across the academic community. His role was to help ensure that the data used in the ranking remained unbiased, accurate, and up-to-date.

Research.com is a research and education platform focused on science rankings, academic decision-making, and career guidance. Its mission is to help professors, research fellows, students, and professionals identify leading experts, compare educational opportunities, and make better-informed choices about research, colleges, and career paths.