World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Plant Science and Agronomy 36 4921 4611 310 292 207 4509

Eileen S. Scott publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Eileen S. Scott between 1984 and 2023, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Eileen S. Scott published across 40 years, from 1984 to 2023, averaging 5.3 papers a year. Output peaked at 28 publications in 2006. 4 of the 210 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20 25
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1984 to 2023. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 28. Peak 28 publications in 2006. 1984: 3 publications 1985: 1 publication 1986: 0 publications 1987: 1 publication 1988: 2 publications 1989: 0 publications 1990: 2 publications 1991: 0 publications 1992: 0 publications 1993: 1 publication 1994: 1 publication 1995: 6 publications 1996: 3 publications 1997: 6 publications 1998: 4 publications 1999: 2 publications 2000: 12 publications 2001: 7 publications 2002: 14 publications 2003: 6 publications 2004: 10 publications 2005: 17 publications 2006: 28 publications 2007: 11 publications 2008: 7 publications 2009: 6 publications 2010: 5 publications 2011: 5 publications 2012: 4 publications 2013: 3 publications 2014: 3 publications 2015: 5 publications 2016: 11 publications 2017: 6 publications 2018: 2 publications 2019: 2 publications 2020: 5 publications 2021: 5 publications 2022: 2 publications 2023: 2 publications
1984 2023

210 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Eileen S. Scott: publications per year, 1984 to 2023
Year Publications
1984 3
1985 1
1986 0
1987 1
1988 2
1989 0
1990 2
1991 0
1992 0
1993 1
1994 1
1995 6
1996 3
1997 6
1998 4
1999 2
2000 12
2001 7
2002 14
2003 6
2004 10
2005 17
2006 28
2007 11
2008 7
2009 6
2010 5
2011 5
2012 4
2013 3
2014 3
2015 5
2016 11
2017 6
2018 2
2019 2
2020 5
2021 5
2022 2
2023 2
Total 210
Download as CSV

Eileen S. Scott publication distribution in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Eileen S. Scott sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150 200 250
Bar chart with 88 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 36–40 to 467+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 255. Most scientists, 255, have 111–115 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 467 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 206–210 publications, is where this scientist sits. 36–40 publications: 2 scientists 41–45 publications: 7 scientists 46–50 publications: 40 scientists 51–55 publications: 58 scientists 56–60 publications: 60 scientists 61–65 publications: 107 scientists 66–70 publications: 130 scientists 71–75 publications: 153 scientists 76–80 publications: 191 scientists 81–85 publications: 199 scientists 86–90 publications: 206 scientists 91–95 publications: 218 scientists 96–100 publications: 226 scientists 101–105 publications: 227 scientists 106–110 publications: 247 scientists 111–115 publications: 255 scientists 116–120 publications: 253 scientists 121–125 publications: 233 scientists 126–130 publications: 219 scientists 131–135 publications: 201 scientists 136–140 publications: 194 scientists 141–145 publications: 176 scientists 146–150 publications: 157 scientists 151–155 publications: 147 scientists 156–160 publications: 151 scientists 161–165 publications: 159 scientists 166–170 publications: 137 scientists 171–175 publications: 128 scientists 176–180 publications: 126 scientists 181–185 publications: 98 scientists 186–190 publications: 114 scientists 191–195 publications: 100 scientists 196–200 publications: 90 scientists 201–205 publications: 71 scientists 206–210 publications: 98 scientists 211–215 publications: 70 scientists 216–220 publications: 86 scientists 221–225 publications: 61 scientists 226–230 publications: 58 scientists 231–235 publications: 53 scientists 236–240 publications: 64 scientists 241–245 publications: 39 scientists 246–250 publications: 46 scientists 251–255 publications: 51 scientists 256–260 publications: 36 scientists 261–265 publications: 44 scientists 266–270 publications: 35 scientists 271–275 publications: 30 scientists 276–280 publications: 33 scientists 281–285 publications: 35 scientists 286–290 publications: 36 scientists 291–295 publications: 26 scientists 296–300 publications: 26 scientists 301–305 publications: 31 scientists 306–310 publications: 30 scientists 311–315 publications: 21 scientists 316–320 publications: 29 scientists 321–325 publications: 14 scientists 326–330 publications: 15 scientists 331–335 publications: 15 scientists 336–340 publications: 17 scientists 341–345 publications: 15 scientists 346–350 publications: 12 scientists 351–355 publications: 17 scientists 356–360 publications: 18 scientists 361–365 publications: 12 scientists 366–370 publications: 11 scientists 371–375 publications: 6 scientists 376–380 publications: 6 scientists 381–385 publications: 11 scientists 386–390 publications: 9 scientists 391–395 publications: 10 scientists 396–400 publications: 8 scientists 401–405 publications: 4 scientists 406–410 publications: 9 scientists 411–415 publications: 11 scientists 416–420 publications: 4 scientists 421–425 publications: 7 scientists 426–430 publications: 4 scientists 431–435 publications: 3 scientists 436–440 publications: 5 scientists 441–445 publications: 8 scientists 446–450 publications: 6 scientists 451–455 publications: 7 scientists 456–460 publications: 5 scientists 461–465 publications: 6 scientists 466 publications: 2 scientists 467+ publications: 99 scientists
36–40 publications 467+

This scientist: 207 publications — 79th percentile

79% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 467 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 6,494 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
36–40 2
41–45 7
46–50 40
51–55 58
56–60 60
61–65 107
66–70 130
71–75 153
76–80 191
81–85 199
86–90 206
91–95 218
96–100 226
101–105 227
106–110 247
111–115 255
116–120 253
121–125 233
126–130 219
131–135 201
136–140 194
141–145 176
146–150 157
151–155 147
156–160 151
161–165 159
166–170 137
171–175 128
176–180 126
181–185 98
186–190 114
191–195 100
196–200 90
201–205 71
206–210 98 207
211–215 70
216–220 86
221–225 61
226–230 58
231–235 53
236–240 64
241–245 39
246–250 46
251–255 51
256–260 36
261–265 44
266–270 35
271–275 30
276–280 33
281–285 35
286–290 36
291–295 26
296–300 26
301–305 31
306–310 30
311–315 21
316–320 29
321–325 14
326–330 15
331–335 15
336–340 17
341–345 15
346–350 12
351–355 17
356–360 18
361–365 12
366–370 11
371–375 6
376–380 6
381–385 11
386–390 9
391–395 10
396–400 8
401–405 4
406–410 9
411–415 11
416–420 4
421–425 7
426–430 4
431–435 3
436–440 5
441–445 8
446–450 6
451–455 7
456–460 5
461–465 6
466 2
467+ 99
Download as CSV

Eileen S. Scott D-index placement in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Eileen S. Scott sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150 200 250
Bar chart with 80 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 109+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 288. Most scientists, 288, have 34 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 109 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 36 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30 D-Index: 200 scientists 31 D-Index: 236 scientists 32 D-Index: 253 scientists 33 D-Index: 283 scientists 34 D-Index: 288 scientists 35 D-Index: 240 scientists 36 D-Index: 246 scientists 37 D-Index: 243 scientists 38 D-Index: 247 scientists 39 D-Index: 229 scientists 40 D-Index: 232 scientists 41 D-Index: 230 scientists 42 D-Index: 228 scientists 43 D-Index: 219 scientists 44 D-Index: 193 scientists 45 D-Index: 164 scientists 46 D-Index: 158 scientists 47 D-Index: 143 scientists 48 D-Index: 131 scientists 49 D-Index: 127 scientists 50 D-Index: 122 scientists 51 D-Index: 122 scientists 52 D-Index: 110 scientists 53 D-Index: 102 scientists 54 D-Index: 98 scientists 55 D-Index: 79 scientists 56 D-Index: 85 scientists 57 D-Index: 88 scientists 58 D-Index: 91 scientists 59 D-Index: 62 scientists 60 D-Index: 61 scientists 61 D-Index: 59 scientists 62 D-Index: 54 scientists 63 D-Index: 61 scientists 64 D-Index: 59 scientists 65 D-Index: 58 scientists 66 D-Index: 41 scientists 67 D-Index: 49 scientists 68 D-Index: 39 scientists 69 D-Index: 32 scientists 70 D-Index: 40 scientists 71 D-Index: 47 scientists 72 D-Index: 38 scientists 73 D-Index: 28 scientists 74 D-Index: 29 scientists 75 D-Index: 28 scientists 76 D-Index: 22 scientists 77 D-Index: 21 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 26 scientists 80 D-Index: 19 scientists 81 D-Index: 16 scientists 82 D-Index: 12 scientists 83 D-Index: 16 scientists 84 D-Index: 14 scientists 85 D-Index: 11 scientists 86 D-Index: 17 scientists 87 D-Index: 13 scientists 88 D-Index: 10 scientists 89 D-Index: 12 scientists 90 D-Index: 18 scientists 91 D-Index: 16 scientists 92 D-Index: 16 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 12 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 9 scientists 97 D-Index: 9 scientists 98 D-Index: 11 scientists 99 D-Index: 12 scientists 100 D-Index: 5 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 4 scientists 103 D-Index: 11 scientists 104 D-Index: 5 scientists 105 D-Index: 9 scientists 106 D-Index: 7 scientists 107 D-Index: 4 scientists 108 D-Index: 8 scientists 109+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 109+

This scientist: 36 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 109 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 6,494 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 200
31 236
32 253
33 283
34 288
35 240
36 246 36
37 243
38 247
39 229
40 232
41 230
42 228
43 219
44 193
45 164
46 158
47 143
48 131
49 127
50 122
51 122
52 110
53 102
54 98
55 79
56 85
57 88
58 91
59 62
60 61
61 59
62 54
63 61
64 59
65 58
66 41
67 49
68 39
69 32
70 40
71 47
72 38
73 28
74 29
75 28
76 22
77 21
78 25
79 26
80 19
81 16
82 12
83 16
84 14
85 11
86 17
87 13
88 10
89 12
90 18
91 16
92 16
93 17
94 12
95 8
96 9
97 9
98 11
99 12
100 5
101 8
102 4
103 11
104 5
105 9
106 7
107 4
108 8
109+ 99
Download as CSV

Overview

What is she best known for?

The fields of study she is best known for:

  • Botany
  • Ecology
  • Fungus

Botany, Horticulture, Ochratoxin A, Berry and Mycotoxin are her primary areas of study. Her Botany research incorporates themes from Food science and Mycorrhiza. Her Horticulture research is multidisciplinary, relying on both Agronomy and Solanaceae.

Her work on Powdery mildew as part of general Agronomy research is frequently linked to Ripeness in viticulture and Vintage, bridging the gap between disciplines. Her studies deal with areas such as Aspergillus and Aspergillus niger as well as Mycotoxin. Her work deals with themes such as Winemaking and Spore, which intersect with Aspergillus.

Her most cited work include:

  • Australian research on ochratoxigenic fungi and ochratoxin A. (109 citations)
  • Australian research on ochratoxigenic fungi and ochratoxin A. (109 citations)
  • The effect of fungicides on vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis (93 citations)

What are the main themes of her work throughout her whole career to date?

The scientist’s investigation covers issues in Horticulture, Botany, Powdery mildew, Agronomy and Eutypa. She combines topics linked to Spore with her work on Horticulture. The study incorporates disciplines such as Inoculation, Genetic variation and Aspergillus niger in addition to Botany.

The concepts of her Powdery mildew study are interwoven with issues in Wine, Viticulture and Yield. Her Uncinula necator research includes elements of Genetics and Polymerase chain reaction. Her research integrates issues of Phycomycetes and Rhizoctonia in her study of Fungi imperfecti.

She most often published in these fields:

  • Horticulture (51.82%)
  • Botany (56.36%)
  • Powdery mildew (28.18%)

What were the highlights of her more recent work (between 2014-2021)?

  • Horticulture (51.82%)
  • Powdery mildew (28.18%)
  • Botany (56.36%)

In recent papers she was focusing on the following fields of study:

Her main research concerns Horticulture, Powdery mildew, Botany, Trunk and Pruning. Her Horticulture study integrates concerns from other disciplines, such as Honey bee, Pollen and Spore. Her Powdery mildew study also includes

  • Disease assessment which is related to area like Chart,
  • Yield, which have a strong connection to Toxicology, Winemaking, Uncinula necator, Widespread Disease and Winery.

Her research on Botany frequently connects to adjacent areas such as Potato dextrose agar. Her Trunk research focuses on Disease and how it relates to Water deficit. She works mostly in the field of Pruning, limiting it down to concerns involving Eutypa and, occasionally, Eutypa lata, Colonisation, Seriata, Rootstock and Irrigation.

Between 2014 and 2021, her most popular works were:

  • Improved classification accuracy of powdery mildew infection levels of wine grapes by spatial-spectral analysis of hyperspectral images. (38 citations)
  • Salt Stress Induces Non-CG Methylation in Coding Regions of Barley Seedlings (Hordeum vulgare) (12 citations)
  • Developing pruning wound protection strategies for managing Eutypa dieback (9 citations)

In her most recent research, the most cited papers focused on:

  • Botany
  • Ecology
  • Fungus

Eileen S. Scott spends much of her time researching Horticulture, Botany, Trunk, Pruning and Hordeum vulgare. Her research brings together the fields of Agronomy and Horticulture. Her Botany research is multidisciplinary, incorporating perspectives in Agar and Potato dextrose agar.

Eileen S. Scott has included themes like Disease and Water deficit in her Trunk study. Her biological study spans a wide range of topics, including Tebuconazole, Eutypa lata, Vineyard, Eutypa and Fluazinam. Her research in Fungicide intersects with topics in Inoculation, Pathogen, Seed treatment, Germination and Blight.

Best Publications

  • Australian research on ochratoxigenic fungi and ochratoxin A.

    S.L. Leong;A.D. Hocking;A.D. Hocking;J.I. Pitt;B.A. Kazi

  • Fungi and mycotoxins in vineyards and grape products.

    Ailsa D. Hocking;Su-lin L. Leong;Su-lin L. Leong;Benozir A. Kazi;Robert W. Emmett

  • Inhibition of Citrus Postharvest Pathogens by Vapor of Citral and Related Compounds in Culture

    Erminawati Wuryatmo;and Andreas Klieber;Eileen S. Scott

  • Taxonomy and DNA phylogeny of Diatrypaceae associated with Vitis vinifera and other woody plants in Australia

    Florent P. Trouillas;Wayne M. Pitt;Mark R. Sosnowski;Rujuan Huang

  • Effect of temperature and water activity on growth and ochratoxin A production by Australian Aspergillus carbonarius and A. niger isolates on a simulated grape juice medium.

    Su-lin L. Leong;Ailsa D. Hocking;Ailsa D. Hocking;Eileen S. Scott;Eileen S. Scott

  • A new species of Phoma causes ascochyta blight symptoms on field peas (Pisum sativum) in South Australia

    J.A. Davidson;D. Hartley;M. Priest;M. Krysinska-Kaczmarek

  • The effect of fungicides on vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis

    N. Sukarno;S. E. Smith;E. S. Scott

  • Trichoderma harzianum T39 and T. virens DAR 74290 as potential biological control agents for Phytophthora erythroseptica

    H.R. Etebarian;E.S. Scott;T.J. Wicks

  • Effects of powdery mildew on the sensory properties and composition of Chardonnay juice and wine when grape sugar ripeness is standardised

    Belinda E. Stummer;Belinda E. Stummer;I. Leigh Francis;I. Leigh Francis;Timothy Zanker;Timothy Zanker;Kate A. Lattey

  • Anastomosis group and pathogenicity of isolates of Rhizoctonia solani from potato crops in South Australia

    G. R. Balali;S. M. Neate;E. S. Scott;D. L. Whisson

  • Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata

    Mark Sosnowski;Mark Sosnowski;M.L. Creaser;M.L. Creaser;Trevor Wicks;Trevor Wicks;Richard Lardner;Richard Lardner

  • Ochratoxin A-producing Aspergilli in Vietnamese green coffee beans

    S.L. Leong;S.L. Leong;L.T. Hien;T.V. An;N.T. Trang

  • Improved classification accuracy of powdery mildew infection levels of wine grapes by spatial-spectral analysis of hyperspectral images.

    Uwe Knauer;Andrea Matros;Tijana Petrovic;Timothy Zanker

  • The Influence of Grapevine Cultivar and Isolate of Eutypa lata on Wood and Foliar Symptoms

    M R Sosnowski;R Lardner;T J Wicks;E S Scott

  • The influence of climate on foliar symptoms of eutypa dieback in grapevines.

    M. R. Sosnowski;D. Shtienberg;M. L. Creaser;T. J. Wicks

  • Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata using Trichoderma harzianum and Fusarium lateritium

    S. John;T. J. Wicks;J. S. Hunt;M. F. Lorimer

  • Aspergillus species producing ochratoxin A: isolation from vineyard soils and infection of Semillon bunches in Australia

    S.L. Leong;S.L. Leong;S.L. Leong;A.D. Hocking;A.D. Hocking;E.S. Scott;E.S. Scott

  • Phenolic and heterocyclic metabolite profiles of the grapevine pathogen Eutypa lata.

    Noreen Mahoney;Richard Lardner;Russell J Molyneux;Eileen S Scott

  • The effect of powdery mildew infection of grape berries on juice and wine composition and on sensory properties of Chardonnay wines

    Belinda E. Stummer;Belinda E. Stummer;I. Leigh Francis;I. Leigh Francis;Andrew J. Markides;Eileen S. Scott;Eileen S. Scott

  • Influence of the mycorrhizal fungus, Glomus coronatum, and soil phosphorus on infection and disease caused by binucleate Rhizoctonia and Rhizoctonia solani on mung bean (Vigna radiata)

    R.S. Kasiamdari;S.E. Smith;F.A. Smith;E.S. Scott

  • The effect of Uncinula necator (powdery mildew) and Botrytis cinerea infection of grapes on the levels of haze‐forming pathogenesis‐related proteins in grape juice and wine

    Teresa Girbau;Belinda E. Stummer;Belinda E. Stummer;Kenneth F. Pocock;Gayle A. Baldock

  • Fate of ochratoxin A during vinification of Semillon and Shiraz grapes.

    Su-lin L. Leong;Ailsa D. Hocking;Peter Varelis;Georgina Giannikopoulos

  • Chemical and biological induction of resistance to the clover cyst nematode (Heterodera trifolii) in white clover (Trifolium repens)

    Valerie N. Kempster;Kerrie A. Davies;Eileen S. Scott

  • An experimental system for characterizing isolates of Uncinula necator

    K.J. Evans;K.J. Evans;D.L. Whisson;D.L. Whisson;E.S. Scott;E.S. Scott

  • Genetic diversity in populations of Uncinula necator: comparison of RFLP- and PCR-based approaches

    B.E. Stummer;T. Zanker;E.S. Scott;D.L. Whisson

  • Mode of action of milk and whey in the control of grapevine powdery mildew

    P Crisp;T J Wicks;Gordon John Fordyce Troup;E S Scott

Frequent Co-Authors

KJ Evans
KJ Evans University of Tasmania
Ailsa D. Hocking
Ailsa D. Hocking Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Margaret Sedgley
Margaret Sedgley University of New England
Bettina Berger
Bettina Berger University of Adelaide
Sally E. Smith
Sally E. Smith University of Adelaide
Russell J. Molyneux
Russell J. Molyneux University of Hawaii at Hilo
Krishnapillai Sivasithamparam
Krishnapillai Sivasithamparam University of Western Australia
Walter D. Gubler
Walter D. Gubler University of California, Davis
F. A. Smith
F. A. Smith University of Adelaide
David M. Gadoury
David M. Gadoury Cornell University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Best Scientists Citing Eileen S. Scott

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles