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
Medicine 86 14082 13258 7145 6612 248 28678

James L. Connolly publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by James L. Connolly between 1980 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. James L. Connolly published across 46 years, from 1980 to 2025, averaging 5.7 papers a year. Output peaked at 15 publications in 2010. 2 of the 264 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1980 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 15. Peak 15 publications in 2010. 1980: 2 publications 1981: 1 publication 1982: 1 publication 1983: 2 publications 1984: 6 publications 1985: 8 publications 1986: 5 publications 1987: 10 publications 1988: 5 publications 1989: 12 publications 1990: 6 publications 1991: 4 publications 1992: 9 publications 1993: 7 publications 1994: 3 publications 1995: 7 publications 1996: 8 publications 1997: 8 publications 1998: 8 publications 1999: 6 publications 2000: 12 publications 2001: 5 publications 2002: 7 publications 2003: 5 publications 2004: 9 publications 2005: 6 publications 2006: 4 publications 2007: 7 publications 2008: 3 publications 2009: 9 publications 2010: 15 publications 2011: 7 publications 2012: 7 publications 2013: 4 publications 2014: 1 publication 2015: 3 publications 2016: 8 publications 2017: 6 publications 2018: 5 publications 2019: 2 publications 2020: 2 publications 2021: 3 publications 2022: 1 publication 2023: 13 publications 2024: 0 publications 2025: 2 publications
1980 2025

264 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
James L. Connolly: publications per year, 1980 to 2025
Year Publications
1980 2
1981 1
1982 1
1983 2
1984 6
1985 8
1986 5
1987 10
1988 5
1989 12
1990 6
1991 4
1992 9
1993 7
1994 3
1995 7
1996 8
1997 8
1998 8
1999 6
2000 12
2001 5
2002 7
2003 5
2004 9
2005 6
2006 4
2007 7
2008 3
2009 9
2010 15
2011 7
2012 7
2013 4
2014 1
2015 3
2016 8
2017 6
2018 5
2019 2
2020 2
2021 3
2022 1
2023 13
2024 0
2025 2
Total 264
Download as CSV

James L. Connolly publications per year - data summary

  • James L. Connolly, a Medicine scholar from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, has 264 publications recorded across 46 years, from 1980 to 2025.
  • The oldest publication on record dates to 1980 and the most recent to 2025.
  • The most productive year is 2010, with 15 publications.
  • The least productive years with any output are 1981, 1982, 2014 and 2022, with 1 publication each.
  • 1 of the 46 years in the span carries no publications at all (2024).
  • The rate of publication averages 5.7 papers per year over the whole span, or 5.9 per year counting only the 45 years with at least one publication.
  • The last 5 years on the chart (2021-2025) hold 19 publications, 7% of the career total.
  • Split into equal eras - 1980-1995: 88 publications (5.5 per year); 1996-2011: 119 publications (7.4 per year); 2012-2025: 57 publications (4.1 per year).
  • Comparing the opening and closing eras, the overall trend of publication is declining.

James L. Connolly publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where James L. Connolly sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 101–120 to 1,796+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 922. Most scientists, 922, have 341–360 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 241–260 publications, is where this scientist sits. 101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 610 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101–120 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 248 publications — 8th percentile

8% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
101–120 5
121–140 26
141–160 73
161–180 155
181–200 230
201–220 363
221–240 487
241–260 545 248
261–280 722
281–300 768
301–320 834
321–340 895
341–360 922
361–380 838
381–400 861
401–420 918
421–440 806
441–460 771
461–480 751
481–500 713
501–520 617
521–540 610
541–560 537
561–580 504
581–600 509
601–620 396
621–640 386
641–660 371
661–680 340
681–700 336
701–720 307
721–740 259
741–760 230
761–780 228
781–800 217
801–820 204
821–840 186
841–860 177
861–880 155
881–900 139
901–920 145
921–940 116
941–960 133
961–980 91
981–1,000 96
1,001–1,020 77
1,021–1,040 70
1,041–1,060 63
1,061–1,080 77
1,081–1,100 49
1,101–1,120 54
1,121–1,140 49
1,141–1,160 51
1,161–1,180 35
1,181–1,200 39
1,201–1,220 26
1,221–1,240 37
1,241–1,260 36
1,261–1,280 27
1,281–1,300 32
1,301–1,320 28
1,321–1,340 17
1,341–1,360 30
1,361–1,380 28
1,381–1,400 17
1,401–1,420 21
1,421–1,440 15
1,441–1,460 12
1,461–1,480 12
1,481–1,500 18
1,501–1,520 14
1,521–1,540 17
1,541–1,560 15
1,561–1,580 6
1,581–1,600 2
1,601–1,620 12
1,621–1,640 11
1,641–1,660 8
1,661–1,680 5
1,681–1,700 5
1,701–1,720 10
1,721–1,740 12
1,741–1,760 14
1,761–1,780 6
1,781–1,795 5
1,796+ 100
Download as CSV

James L. Connolly publication distribution in Medicine in 2026 - data summary

  • The chart plots the publication count of all 20,134 Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026, grouped into 86 ranges running from 101–120 to 1,796+ publications.
  • James L. Connolly, a Medicine scholar from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, records 248 publications - the 8th percentile of the discipline.
  • 8% of ranked Medicine scientists score the same or lower than James L. Connolly, and about 92% score higher.
  • The median of the discipline falls in the 441–460 publications range, and James L. Connolly ranks below the median.
  • The most crowded range is 341–360 publications, holding 922 scientists (5% of the field).
  • 64% of the field sits in the lowest quarter of the value range (up to 521–540 publications), so the distribution is heavily right-skewed and high scores are rare.
  • The final bar has no upper bound: it groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more, 100 scientists in all (<1% of the field).

James L. Connolly D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where James L. Connolly sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
250 500 750 1,000
Bar chart with 75 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 70–71 to 217+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 1,027. Most scientists, 1,027, have 82–83 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 86–87 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 399 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70–71 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 86 D-Index — 31st percentile

31% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
70–71 226
72–73 391
74–75 574
76–77 730
78–79 891
80–81 972
82–83 1,027
84–85 1,003
86–87 960 86
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779
98–99 668
100–101 611
102–103 630
104–105 513
106–107 541
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399
114–115 393
116–117 318
118–119 302
120–121 287
122–123 255
124–125 256
126–127 252
128–129 230
130–131 179
132–133 168
134–135 163
136–137 159
138–139 134
140–141 134
142–143 118
144–145 109
146–147 106
148–149 74
150–151 79
152–153 80
154–155 87
156–157 57
158–159 74
160–161 69
162–163 60
164–165 53
166–167 39
168–169 42
170–171 32
172–173 39
174–175 40
176–177 28
178–179 19
180–181 23
182–183 31
184–185 18
186–187 20
188–189 22
190–191 13
192–193 21
194–195 12
196–197 12
198–199 14
200–201 15
202–203 13
204–205 10
206–207 8
208–209 4
210–211 12
212–213 11
214–215 10
216 4
217+ 98
Download as CSV

James L. Connolly D-index placement in Medicine in 2026 - data summary

  • The chart plots the discipline H-index (D-index) of all 20,134 Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026, grouped into 75 ranges running from 70–71 to 217+ D-Index.
  • James L. Connolly, a Medicine scholar from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, records 86 D-Index - the 31st percentile of the discipline.
  • 31% of ranked Medicine scientists score the same or lower than James L. Connolly, and about 69% score higher.
  • The median of the discipline falls in the 94–95 D-Index range, and James L. Connolly ranks below the median.
  • The most crowded range is 82–83 D-Index, holding 1,027 scientists (5% of the field).
  • 70% of the field sits in the lowest quarter of the value range (up to 106–107 D-Index), so the distribution is heavily right-skewed and high scores are rare.
  • The final bar has no upper bound: it groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more, 98 scientists in all (<1% of the field).

Overview

James L. Connolly is affiliated with the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in the United States. Their research primarily spans the field of medicine, with a focus on oncology, artificial intelligence, pathology and forensic medicine, cancer research, and surgery.

Their work addresses several key topics, including:

  • AI in cancer detection
  • Breast lesions and carcinomas
  • Colorectal cancer screening and detection
  • Global cancer incidence and screening
  • Oral and gingival health research
  • Gut microbiota and health
  • Oral microbiology and periodontitis research

James L. Connolly has contributed to multiple recent papers. Notable publications include:

  • "The physical biogeography of Fusobacterium nucleatum in health and disease," 2025, published in mBio
  • "Novel Postneoadjuvant Prognostic Breast Cancer Staging System," 2025, published in Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • "Deep Learning Image Analysis of Benign Breast Disease to Identify Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer," 2020, published in JNCI Cancer Spectrum
  • "Differences in physician opinions about controversial issues surrounding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM): A survey of physicians from accredited breast centers in the United States," 2020, published in Cancer Medicine
  • "Deep Learning Image Analysis of Benign Breast Disease to Identify Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer," 2020, published in bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

The scientist has frequently collaborated with several coauthors during their research, including:

  • Adithya D Vellal
  • Kevin H. Kensler
  • Gabrielle M. Baker
  • Andreea Lucia Stancu
  • Michael E. Pyle

James L. Connolly regularly publishes their work in well-recognized scientific venues such as:

  • Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
  • JNCI Cancer Spectrum
  • mBio
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Their research contributions cover diverse methodologies, including the application of deep learning techniques to cancer detection and prognostic systems, with a focus on understanding breast disease and the microbial environments influencing health and disease states.

Best Publications

  • Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

    Fitzgibbons Pl;Page Dl;Weaver D;Thor Ad

  • Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer

    Patrick L. Fitzgibbons;Patrick L. Fitzgibbons;David L. Page;Donald Weaver;Ann D. Thor

  • Expression of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) and its receptors in breast cancer

    Lawrence F Brown;Brygida Berse;Robert W Jackman;Kathi Tognazzi

  • Breast Cancer—Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

    Armando E. Giuliano;James L. Connolly;Stephen B. Edge;Elizabeth A. Mittendorf

  • Relationship of patient age to pathologic features of the tumor and prognosis for patients with stage I or II breast cancer.

    Asa J. Nixon;Donna Neuberg;Daniel F. Hayes;Rebecca Gelman

  • Outcome at 8 Years After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy for Invasive Breast Cancer: Influence of Margin Status and Systemic Therapy on Local Recurrence

    Catherine C. Park;Michihide Mitsumori;Asa Nixon;Abram Recht

  • A prospective study of benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer.

    Stephanie J. London;James L. Connolly;Stuart J. Schnitt;Graham A. Colditz

  • The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast‐conserving surgery and radiation therapy

    Stuart J. Schnitt;Anthony Abner;Rebecca Gelman;James L. Connolly

  • Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria.

    Stuart J. Schnitt;James L. Connolly;Fattaneh A. Tavassoli;Robert E. Fechner

  • The presence of an extensive intraductal component following a limited excision correlates with prominent residual disease in the remainder of the breast.

    Roland Holland;James L. Connolly;Rebecca Gelman;Marcel Mravunac

  • Breast Cancer Staging: Working With the Sixth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual†

    S. Eva Singletary;James L. Connolly

  • Pathologic predictors of early local recurrence in Stage I and II breast cancer treated by primary radiation therapy

    Stuart J. Schnitt;James L. Connolly;Jay R. Harris;Samuel Hellman

  • Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy.

    Irene Gage;Irene Gage;Stuart J. Schnitt;Asa J. Nixon;B A Barbara Silver

  • Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies: to excise or not to excise?

    Timothy W. Jacobs;James L. Connolly;Stuart J. Schnitt

  • Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

    Rulla May Tamimi;Rulla May Tamimi;Heather Joanne Baer;Heather Joanne Baer;Jonathan Marotti;Mark Galan

  • Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer

    Timothy W. Jacobs;Celia Byrne;Graham Colditz;James L. Connolly

  • Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses' Health Study.

    Laura C. Collins;Rulla M. Tamimi;Rulla M. Tamimi;Heather J. Baer;Heather J. Baer;James L. Connolly

  • Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation.

    P C Stomper;J L Connolly;J E Meyer;J R Harris

  • Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types.

    Lynn M. Marshall;David J. Hunter;James L. Connolly;Stuart J. Schnitt

  • Three-dimensional endomicroscopy using optical coherence tomography

    Desmond C. Adler;Yu Chen;Robert Huber;Robert Huber;Joseph Schmitt

Frequent Co-Authors

Stuart J. Schnitt
Stuart J. Schnitt Brigham and Women's Hospital
Jay R. Harris
Jay R. Harris Brigham and Women's Hospital
Abram Recht
Abram Recht Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Rulla M. Tamimi
Rulla M. Tamimi Cornell University
Graham A. Colditz
Graham A. Colditz Washington University in St. Louis
Rebecca Gelman
Rebecca Gelman Harvard University
Bernard Rosner
Bernard Rosner Harvard University
Walter C. Willett
Walter C. Willett Harvard University
Susan E. Hankinson
Susan E. Hankinson University of Massachusetts Amherst

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

If you’re interested in medical careers beyond traditional pathways, there are diverse online degrees to consider. For those leaning toward leadership roles, earning a health care administration degree online can open doors to management and administrative positions in various healthcare settings.

Registered nurses aiming to advance their qualifications efficiently might explore adn to np programs, which provide a streamlined route from an Associate Degree in Nursing to becoming a Nurse Practitioner. These bridge programs are popular for offering flexibility and accelerated progression.

If preventive care, wellness, and dietetics interests you, online nutrition degree programs offer a focused curriculum designed for future nutritionists and health educators.

For a higher-level credential in healthcare leadership, many professionals consider accredited options such as the cahme accredited online mha programs list. These programs are recognized for their quality and alignment with industry standards, making them a strong choice for future healthcare executives.

Best Scientists Citing James L. Connolly

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles