World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
50
Citations
8430
World Ranking
5036
National Ranking
1848

Igor Linkov publication distribution in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Environmental Sciences in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Igor Linkov sits on this spectrum.

41–50 publications: 21 scientists 51–60 publications: 62 scientists 61–70 publications: 133 scientists 71–80 publications: 257 scientists 81–90 publications: 361 scientists 91–100 publications: 440 scientists 101–110 publications: 492 scientists 111–120 publications: 541 scientists 121–130 publications: 617 scientists 131–140 publications: 544 scientists 141–150 publications: 541 scientists 151–160 publications: 539 scientists 161–170 publications: 444 scientists 171–180 publications: 444 scientists 181–190 publications: 400 scientists 191–200 publications: 377 scientists 201–210 publications: 318 scientists 211–220 publications: 283 scientists 221–230 publications: 263 scientists 231–240 publications: 220 scientists 241–250 publications: 217 scientists 251–260 publications: 180 scientists 261–270 publications: 181 scientists 271–280 publications: 155 scientists 281–290 publications: 130 scientists 291–300 publications: 127 scientists 301–310 publications: 130 scientists 311–320 publications: 85 scientists 321–330 publications: 106 scientists 331–340 publications: 80 scientists 341–350 publications: 83 scientists 351–360 publications: 75 scientists 361–370 publications: 69 scientists 371–380 publications: 52 scientists 381–390 publications: 54 scientists 391–400 publications: 56 scientists 401–410 publications: 44 scientists 411–420 publications: 40 scientists 421–430 publications: 36 scientists 431–440 publications: 25 scientists 441–450 publications: 25 scientists 451–460 publications: 32 scientists 461–470 publications: 29 scientists 471–480 publications: 21 scientists 481–490 publications: 26 scientists 491–500 publications: 25 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 18 scientists 521–530 publications: 15 scientists 531–540 publications: 22 scientists 541–550 publications: 12 scientists 551–560 publications: 15 scientists 561–570 publications: 11 scientists 571–580 publications: 19 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 9 scientists 601–610 publications: 7 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 5 scientists 631–640 publications: 5 scientists 641–650 publications: 6 scientists 651–660 publications: 3 scientists 661–670 publications: 3 scientists 671–680 publications: 4 scientists 681–686 publications: 3 scientists 687+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 687+

This scientist: 282 publications — 83rd percentile

83% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 687 publications or more.

Igor Linkov D-index placement in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Environmental Sciences scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Igor Linkov sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 12 scientists 31 D-Index: 26 scientists 32 D-Index: 51 scientists 33 D-Index: 88 scientists 34 D-Index: 123 scientists 35 D-Index: 163 scientists 36 D-Index: 206 scientists 37 D-Index: 267 scientists 38 D-Index: 265 scientists 39 D-Index: 275 scientists 40 D-Index: 321 scientists 41 D-Index: 343 scientists 42 D-Index: 305 scientists 43 D-Index: 336 scientists 44 D-Index: 330 scientists 45 D-Index: 348 scientists 46 D-Index: 291 scientists 47 D-Index: 275 scientists 48 D-Index: 272 scientists 49 D-Index: 273 scientists 50 D-Index: 263 scientists 51 D-Index: 232 scientists 52 D-Index: 266 scientists 53 D-Index: 217 scientists 54 D-Index: 199 scientists 55 D-Index: 177 scientists 56 D-Index: 202 scientists 57 D-Index: 204 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 177 scientists 60 D-Index: 166 scientists 61 D-Index: 152 scientists 62 D-Index: 143 scientists 63 D-Index: 150 scientists 64 D-Index: 124 scientists 65 D-Index: 119 scientists 66 D-Index: 120 scientists 67 D-Index: 118 scientists 68 D-Index: 82 scientists 69 D-Index: 98 scientists 70 D-Index: 94 scientists 71 D-Index: 105 scientists 72 D-Index: 74 scientists 73 D-Index: 84 scientists 74 D-Index: 70 scientists 75 D-Index: 67 scientists 76 D-Index: 78 scientists 77 D-Index: 60 scientists 78 D-Index: 59 scientists 79 D-Index: 52 scientists 80 D-Index: 47 scientists 81 D-Index: 38 scientists 82 D-Index: 48 scientists 83 D-Index: 42 scientists 84 D-Index: 42 scientists 85 D-Index: 43 scientists 86 D-Index: 29 scientists 87 D-Index: 37 scientists 88 D-Index: 29 scientists 89 D-Index: 30 scientists 90 D-Index: 34 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 22 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 19 scientists 95 D-Index: 24 scientists 96 D-Index: 21 scientists 97 D-Index: 20 scientists 98 D-Index: 24 scientists 99 D-Index: 17 scientists 100 D-Index: 17 scientists 101 D-Index: 21 scientists 102 D-Index: 25 scientists 103 D-Index: 18 scientists 104 D-Index: 26 scientists 105 D-Index: 19 scientists 106 D-Index: 15 scientists 107 D-Index: 10 scientists 108 D-Index: 13 scientists 109 D-Index: 15 scientists 110 D-Index: 12 scientists 111 D-Index: 8 scientists 112 D-Index: 7 scientists 113 D-Index: 9 scientists 114 D-Index: 6 scientists 115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116 D-Index: 7 scientists 117 D-Index: 8 scientists 118 D-Index: 3 scientists 119 D-Index: 5 scientists 120 D-Index: 7 scientists 121 D-Index: 2 scientists 122 D-Index: 4 scientists 123 D-Index: 8 scientists 124 D-Index: 7 scientists 125+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 125+

This scientist: 50 D-Index — 50th percentile

50% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 125 D-Index or more.

Best Publications

  • Changing the resilience paradigm

    Igor Linkov;Todd Bridges;Felix Creutzig;Jennifer Decker

  • Digital technologies can enhance climate resilience of critical infrastructure

    Unknown

  • Increasing Scientific Confidence in Adverse Outcome Pathways: Application of Tailored Bradford-Hill Considerations for Evaluating Weight of Evidence.

    Richard A. Becker;Gerald T. Ankley;Stephen W. Edwards;Sean W. Kennedy

  • Governance Strategies for a Sustainable Digital World

    Igor Linkov;Benjamin D. Trump;Kelsey Poinsatte-Jones;Marie Valentine Florin

  • Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review

    Jeffrey C. Cegan;Ashley M. Filion;Jeffrey M. Keisler;Igor Linkov

  • Untangling drivers of species distributions: Global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of MaxEnt

    M. Convertino;R. Muñoz-Carpena;M. L. Chu-Agor;G. A. Kiker

  • Exploring vulnerability of coastal habitats to sea level rise through global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses

    M. L. Chu-Agor;R. Muñoz-Carpena;G. Kiker;A. Emanuelsson

  • Impacts of rising air temperatures on electric transmission ampacity and peak electricity load in the United States

    Matthew Bartos;Mikhail Chester;Nathan Johnson;Brandon Gorman

  • Illustrating Anticipatory Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Photovoltaic Technologies

    Ben A. Wender;Rider W. Foley;Rider W. Foley;Valentina Prado-Lopez;Dwarakanath Ravikumar

  • Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sediment remediation

    Magnus Sparrevik;Tuomo Saloranta;Gerard Cornelissen;Espen Eek

  • Tiered Approach to Resilience Assessment.

    Igor Linkov;Cate Fox-Lent;Laura Read;Craig R. Allen

  • A matrix approach to community resilience assessment: an illustrative case at Rockaway Peninsula

    Cate Fox-Lent;Matthew E. Bates;Igor Linkov

  • Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks.

    Khara Deanne Grieger;Igor Linkov;Steffen Foss Hansen;Anders Baun

  • Equilibrium of radiocesium with stable cesium within the biological cycle of contaminated forest ecosystems.

    S. Yoshida;Y. Muramatsu;A.M. Dvornik;T.A. Zhuchenko

  • Predicted spatio-temporal dynamics of radiocesium deposited onto forests following the Fukushima nuclear accident

    Shoji Hashimoto;Toshiya Matsuura;Kazuki Nanko;Igor Linkov

  • Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations.

    Christopher W Karvetski;James H Lambert;Igor Linkov

  • Emerging methods and tools for environmental risk assessment, decision-making, and policy for nanomaterials: summary of NATO Advanced Research Workshop.

    Igor Linkov;Jeffery Steevens;Gitanjali Adlakha-Hutcheon;Erin Bennett

  • Integration of Decision Analysis and Scenario Planning for Coastal Engineering and Climate Change

    C W Karvetski;J H Lambert;J M Keisler;I Linkov

  • Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation.

    Igor Linkov;Paul Welle;Drew Loney;Alex Tkachuk

  • Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies

    Igor Linkov;Benjamin D. Trump;Elke Anklam;David Berube

  • Emergent conditions and multiple criteria analysis in infrastructure prioritization for developing countries

    Christopher W. Karvetski;James H. Lambert;Igor Linkov

  • The impact of sea-level rise on Snowy Plovers in Florida: integrating geomorphological, habitat, and metapopulation models

    Matthew E. Aiello-Lammens;Ma. Librada Chu-Agor;Matteo Convertino;Richard A. Fischer

  • Coupling Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment for Nanomaterials

    Thomas P. Seager;Igor Linkov

  • Flood Risk Management: US Army Corps of Engineers and Layperson Perceptions

    Matthew Wood;Daniel Kovacs;Ann Bostrom;Todd Bridges

  • A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials.

    Danail Rumenov Hristozov;Alex Zabeo;Christy Foran;Panagiotis Isigonis

  • Cybersecurity Standards: Managing Risk and Creating Resilience

    Zachary A. Collier;Daniel DiMase;Steve Walters;Mark Mohammad Tehranipoor

  • Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods.

    Igor Linkov;Benjamin D. Trump;Benjamin D. Trump;Ben A. Wender;Ben A. Wender;Thomas P. Seager

  • Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the US

    Estee Y Cramer;Evan L Ray;Velma K Lopez;Johannes Bracher

  • Prioritization of sediment management alternatives using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis.

    Manuel Alvarez-Guerra;Laure Canis;Nikolaos Voulvoulis;Javier R. Viguri

  • Emissions of metals and polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs) from Portland cement manufacturing plants: Inter-kiln variability and dependence on fuel-types

    Stephen Zemba;Michael Ames;Laura Green;Maria João Botelho

  • Resilience science, policy and investment for civil infrastructure

    T. P. Bostick;Elizabeth B. Connelly;Elizabeth B. Connelly;James H. Lambert;Igor Linkov

  • Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance

    Vrishali Subramanian;Elena Semenzin;Danail Rumenov Hristozov;Alex Zabeo

Frequent Co-Authors

James H. Lambert
James H. Lambert University of Virginia
Rafael Muñoz-Carpena
Rafael Muñoz-Carpena University of Florida
Antonio Marcomini
Antonio Marcomini Ca Foscari University of Venice
Mikhail Chester
Mikhail Chester Arizona State University
Ann Bostrom
Ann Bostrom University of Washington
Scott L. Greer
Scott L. Greer University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Richard Wilson
Richard Wilson Harvard University
Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand
Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand Aarhus University
Tad T. Brunyé
Tad T. Brunyé Tufts University
Julie M. Schoenung
Julie M. Schoenung University of California, Irvine

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:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

For those interested in environmental sciences, exploring related online degrees can broaden career opportunities. Many students look for the easiest bachelors degree programs to enter the field quickly while still gaining essential knowledge in environmental topics. This can be an excellent starting point for career changers or those balancing other commitments.

If your focus is more technical, earning the best online geology degree provides specialized expertise in earth sciences. These programs often include fieldwork components along with theoretical study, preparing graduates for roles in environmental consulting, resource management, or research.

The growing importance of spatial data in environmental work highlights the value of best gis programs. GIS skills are critical for analyzing geographical information to support environmental planning, conservation, and disaster management.

For professionals aiming to take on leadership roles in public administration or policy, completing a one year mpa program offers an efficient pathway. This degree trains students in management and policy implementation, key for driving sustainable environmental initiatives.

Best Scientists Citing Igor Linkov

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles