Ranking of the Best Scientists in the World in 2022 (1st Edition)

by Imed Bouchrika, PhD

Co-Founder and Chief Data Scientist

Share

Research.com published the 1st edition of its annual ranking of the best scientists in the world on October 28, 2022. The list is designed for people who want a fast, data-based view of where the most influential research is coming from and which scholars are shaping their fields.

If you are a student choosing a graduate program, a researcher looking for collaborators, a university benchmarking its faculty, or an employer scouting expertise, this ranking can be a useful starting point. It is not, however, a complete measure of scientific quality. The best way to use it is to treat it as one signal among many and then verify fit, recent activity, funding, accreditation, and career relevance.

This guide explains what the 2022 ranking shows, how the results were built, where leading scientists and institutions are concentrated, what the numbers can and cannot tell you, and how to use the ranking without overestimating it.

Quick answer: what does the 2022 world scientist ranking show?

The 2022 Research.com scientist ranking highlights highly influential researchers using research-impact indicators such as h-index and citation-related measures, along with field relevance, awards, and achievements. Walter C. Willett from Harvard University ranks first worldwide with an h-index of 389. Scientists affiliated with institutions in the United States make up 617 entries, or 61.7% of the full list.

In practical terms, the ranking is best used to identify strong research ecosystems, prominent scholars, and countries or institutions with dense concentrations of highly cited work. It should not be used alone to choose a university, job, funding source, or collaborator.

What the Research.com scientist ranking actually measures

This ranking focuses on visible scholarly influence. The core idea is simple: researchers who publish work that is cited frequently and consistently tend to appear higher on the list. That makes the ranking useful for identifying established academic impact, especially in fields where citation activity is a strong indicator of research reach.

For the 2022 edition, Research.com reviewed more than 166,880 scientist profiles from Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Graph. The methodology considered several indicators, including h-index, discipline-specific contribution, awards, and achievements. The minimum h-index threshold varied by field and was most often set at 30 or 40, depending on the discipline.

That makes the list especially helpful for people who want a broad map of research influence. But it also means the ranking reflects a specific kind of success: published, cited, and recognized academic work. It does not fully capture mentoring, teaching, practical innovation, community impact, or newer work that has not yet had time to accumulate citations.

How to use the ranking without misreading it

The ranking is useful when you need a starting point, not a final verdict. It can point you toward major research hubs, established scholars, and institutions with visible academic strength. The key is to move from broad ranking signals to specific checks that match your goal.

For example, a student may notice that a university has many ranked scientists. The next question should be whether those faculty members work in the student’s subfield, supervise graduate students, publish recently, and have active funding or lab resources. A high ranking alone does not guarantee day-to-day access or a strong fit.

Why scientists appear in these rankings

Scientists are included when their citation impact and related scholarly indicators pass the field-based threshold used for the ranking. In the 2022 edition, that meant the list favored researchers with sustained publication histories and broad recognition within their specialties.

That design has strengths. It helps distinguish scholars whose work has clearly influenced a field over time. It also creates a limitation: the ranking naturally leans toward researchers who have had more years to build citation volume. Early-career scientists, applied researchers, and scholars in citation-light disciplines may be underrepresented even when they do excellent work.

Key findings from the 2022 world’s best scientists ranking

• Walter C. Willett from Harvard University ranks as the best scientist in the world, with an h-index of 389.
• 9 out of 10 scientists in the top 10 are affiliated with institutions in the United States.
• The United States has 617 scientists in the 2022 ranking, equal to 61.7% of the full list.
• The United Kingdom has 95 scientists, or 9.5% of the ranking.
• Germany has 39 scientists, or 3.9% of the ranking.
• Harvard University leads all institutions with 78 affiliated scientists included.
• Eric S. Lander from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, United States, has the highest citation count, with 792,604 citations.
• The average H-index is 327 for the top 1% of scientists and 183 for the top 1000 scientists in the ranking.

The full 2022 list is available here:

WORLD'S BEST SCIENTISTS RANKING

Which countries have the most leading scientists?

The country totals show a strong concentration of highly ranked scientists in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Germany. That pattern is important for readers who want to understand where major research infrastructure, publication networks, and high-impact academic institutions are clustered.

At the same time, country totals should be read carefully. The country attached to each scientist is based on the affiliated research institution listed in MAG, not the scientist’s nationality. That means the ranking reflects institutional location rather than citizenship.

Other countries with notable representation include Australia with 30 scientists, France with 23 scientists, Canada with 23 scientists, China with 19 scientists, and Japan and Italy with 16 scholars each.

Which institutions have the strongest representation?

Harvard University has the largest institutional presence in the 2022 ranking, with 78 affiliated scientists. The US National Institutes of Health follows with 22, and MIT ranks third with 21. That concentration points to the importance of research infrastructure, funding, and long-term scholarly networks.

Among the top 10 institutions, American universities and research organizations account for 80%. The two non-U.S. institutions in that group are Cambridge and Oxford from the United Kingdom.

Looking only at the affiliations of the scientists in the top 10 individual positions, 9 out of 10 institutions are located in the United States. The only exception is Sorbonne University in France, whose affiliated scientist holds the no. 10 position.

What the top regional scientists show

Regional leaders give readers a more specific way to interpret the global list. They show how influence is distributed across continents and how one researcher can represent an entire region within the broader ranking.

In North America, Professor Walter C. Willett of Harvard University holds the top position and is also ranked no. 1 globally. His h-index is 389.

In Europe, Professor Guido Kroemer of Sorbonne University in France leads the region and is ranked no. 10 worldwide. His h-index is 300.

In Asia, Professor Shizuo Akira of Osaka University in Japan is the highest-ranked scientist in the region. He has an H-index of 293 and holds the no. 13 position globally.

In Oceania, Professor Nicholas G. Martin of the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Australia is the region’s top-ranked scientist. He is also ranked no. 116 worldwide.

In Africa, Professor Matt J. Jarvis of the University of the Western Cape in South Africa ranks first in the region and no. 319 globally.

In South America, Professor Maria-Teresa Dova of the National University of La Plata in Argentina is the highest-ranked scientist, with a world ranking of 578.

You can review the ranking process and criteria in more detail here.

Why citation-based rankings have limits

Citation rankings are useful because they offer a scalable way to compare scholarly output, but they are not neutral measures of total value. Citation volume varies by discipline, publication style, and research culture. A scholar in one field may accumulate citations much faster than a scholar in another field even when both are equally strong in their own areas.

Career stage also matters. Senior researchers usually have more time to publish, be cited, and build an h-index. That means younger scientists can be excellent without appearing near the top of a citation-based list.

Data source coverage can also shape outcomes. Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Graph do not index everything in the same way, and issues such as author-name matching, institutional affiliation, coauthorship networks, and field classification can all affect the final ranking. Interdisciplinary researchers can be especially difficult to measure using a single discipline-based system.

Because of these limits, the ranking should not be treated as a shortcut for choosing a school or program. Program quality also depends on accreditation, curriculum design, faculty access, cost, student services, and licensure requirements where relevant. Learners with military backgrounds may also need a more targeted education comparison, such as an online military college guide, rather than a science ranking alone.

How these rankings can affect graduate study decisions

For prospective graduate students, the ranking can help narrow the field. A university with multiple highly ranked scholars in a relevant area may offer a strong research environment. Still, students should ask whether those scholars are actually teaching, supervising, and funding graduate work in the desired specialization.

Degree choice should begin with the type of career you want. Research-focused academic paths often require a thesis-based master’s degree or doctorate. Applied paths may value schedule flexibility, professional recognition, internship access, or licensure alignment more heavily. Some learners also compare alternative doctoral structures, including options such as online PhD criminal justice no dissertation, but they should make sure the format is respected in their target field and aligned with their long-term goals.

Can scientist rankings tell you anything about pay?

Scientist rankings do not directly predict earnings. They can point to strong research environments and well-known institutions, but salary depends on role, field, employer type, location, experience, and funding conditions. A highly ranked institution may provide better connections and stronger training, yet it does not guarantee higher pay for every graduate or researcher.

People who are evaluating education from an ROI perspective should compare tuition, time commitment, credential requirements, and likely job outcomes together. For some learners, a research-heavy degree makes sense. For others, an applied credential with a quicker path into the workforce may be more practical. Readers who want faster entry options can also compare the highest paying 2 year degree while checking local hiring expectations.

Current trends shaping how to read scientist rankings

Scientific influence is becoming harder to summarize with one metric. Large collaborative papers, open-access publishing, preprints, and AI-supported research workflows all affect how quickly work is discovered, cited, and reused. As a result, citation-based rankings remain useful, but they need context.

For students and institutions, that means the smartest approach is to combine rankings with qualitative review. Recent publications, funding activity, reproducibility, mentoring quality, societal impact, and field-specific reputation may tell you more about actual opportunity than a score alone.

Common mistakes people make with scientist rankings

• Assuming a top-ranked university is right for every learner. A school can be prestigious overall and still be a poor fit for your field, budget, advisor needs, or learning format.
• Using h-index as the only quality measure. The metric rewards accumulated citation impact and can understate newer or more applied work.
• Ignoring discipline differences. Citation practices vary significantly from one field to another, so cross-field comparisons can be misleading.
• Confusing institutional affiliation with nationality. In this ranking, the country reflects the listed research institution, not citizenship.
• Picking a program only because a famous researcher is listed there. High visibility does not always mean the scholar teaches, advises, or works in your area of interest.
• Expecting the ranking to predict salary. Earnings are shaped by occupation, location, employer type, and market demand.
• Skipping accreditation and licensure checks. Research prestige does not replace the need to confirm recognition, transfer rules, financial aid access, and professional requirements.

Practical steps for students, researchers, and institutions

1. Define the decision you are trying to make. Are you looking for a collaborator, advisor, benchmark, or broad view of research influence?
2. Filter by field and subfield. Overall rank matters less than whether the scholar works in your specific area.
3. Check recent output. Look at current publications, grants, lab activity, and conference presence.
4. Confirm access. A highly ranked researcher may not be taking students or external collaborators.
5. Review institutional support. Funding, facilities, advising, and program structure matter as much as prestige.
6. Read the methodology. Understand what the ranking measures, what it leaves out, and how the data sources shape the results.
7. Cross-check with independent evidence. Use accreditation, career outcomes, faculty profiles, and cost comparisons before deciding.

How rankings can guide broader education choices

Scientist rankings can support education planning, but they should not replace program research. If you already know you want a research-focused path, the next step is to compare the actual graduate programs, faculty members, and funding options that align with your goals. If you want a faster or more flexible route into a science-adjacent role, a different type of program may make more sense.

That distinction matters. Some learners need deep research training. Others need practical credentials that lead quickly to work in laboratories, data teams, healthcare organizations, engineering groups, or technology companies. If you are still deciding whether a long academic route is necessary, it may help to compare options such as the shortest masters degree or review broader pathways like what is the easiest degree to get and then weigh those choices against your long-term goals. For working adults, the best online degree programs for working adults may be more relevant than a research-heavy ranking alone, while learners seeking quicker workforce entry may also compare short careers. Military-affiliated students should consider an online military college option if flexibility and benefits use are priorities.

For more detail on how Research.com builds its rankings, you can review the process and criteria here.

Key Insights

• The 2022 Research.com world scientist ranking is best understood as a citation- and influence-based guide, not a complete measure of scientific excellence.
• Walter C. Willett from Harvard University ranks no. 1 worldwide with an h-index of 389.
• The United States dominates the ranking with 617 scientists, representing 61.7% of the full list.
• Harvard University leads institutions with 78 affiliated scientists, showing how strongly the ranking reflects concentrated research power.
• H-index and citation counts are useful, but they favor long-established scholars and vary by discipline and career stage.
• Students should use the ranking to identify possible research environments, then verify advisor fit, funding, accreditation, and career outcomes before choosing a program.
• Institutions and funders can use the list to spot research concentration and collaboration opportunities, but they should pair it with qualitative review and field-specific context.

The research process was coordinated by Imed Bouchrika, Ph.D., a computer scientist with extensive experience collaborating on international research initiatives across the academic community. His responsibility was to help ensure that the data remained accurate, current, and unbiased.

Research.com is a research and education rankings portal built to help professors, research fellows, students, and professionals identify leading experts, compare academic opportunities, and make better-informed education and career decisions.