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 33 5729 5369 183 177 93 3827

Jana Kholova publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Jana Kholova between 2009 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Jana Kholova published across 17 years, from 2009 to 2025, averaging 7.9 papers a year. Output peaked at 17 publications in 2022. 31 of the 134 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2009 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 17. Peak 17 publications in 2022. 2009: 3 publications 2010: 5 publications 2011: 3 publications 2012: 2 publications 2013: 6 publications 2014: 3 publications 2015: 3 publications 2016: 1 publication 2017: 6 publications 2018: 8 publications 2019: 10 publications 2020: 14 publications 2021: 10 publications 2022: 17 publications 2023: 12 publications 2024: 15 publications 2025: 16 publications
2009 2025

134 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Jana Kholova: publications per year, 2009 to 2025
Year Publications
2009 3
2010 5
2011 3
2012 2
2013 6
2014 3
2015 3
2016 1
2017 6
2018 8
2019 10
2020 14
2021 10
2022 17
2023 12
2024 15
2025 16
Total 134
Download as CSV

Jana Kholova 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 Jana Kholova 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, 91–95 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: 93 publications — 20th percentile

20% 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 93
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
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

Jana Kholova 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 Jana Kholova 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, 33 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: 33 D-Index — 15th percentile

15% 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 33
34 288
35 240
36 246
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

Best Publications

  • Transpiration efficiency: new insights into an old story

    Vincent Vadez;Jana Kholova;Susan Medina;Aparna Kakkera

  • Constitutive water-conserving mechanisms are correlated with the terminal drought tolerance of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]

    Jana Kholová;C. Tom Hash;Aparna Kakkera;Marie Kočová

  • Terminal drought-tolerant pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] have high leaf ABA and limit transpiration at high vapour pressure deficit

    Jana Kholová;Jana Kholová;C. T. Hash;P. Lava Kumar;Rattan S. Yadav

  • LeasyScan: a novel concept combining 3D imaging and lysimetry for high-throughput phenotyping of traits controlling plant water budget

    Vincent Vadez;Jana Kholová;Grégoire Hummel;Uladzimir Zhokhavets

  • Ecology and genomics of an important crop wild relative as a prelude to agricultural innovation.

    Eric J.B. von Wettberg;Eric J.B. von Wettberg;Peter L. Chang;Peter L. Chang;Fatma Başdemir;Noelia Carrasquila-Garcia

  • II.1.5 Phenotyping pearl millet for adaptation to drought.

    Vincent Vadez;Tom Hash;Francis R. Bidinger;Jana Kholova

  • Stay-green quantitative trait loci's effects on water extraction, transpiration efficiency and seed yield depend on recipient parent background

    Vincent Vadez;Santosh P. Deshpande;Jana Kholova;Graeme L. Hammer

  • Water: the most important 'molecular' component of water stress tolerance research

    Vincent Vadez;Jana Kholova;Mainassara Zaman-Allah;Mainassara Zaman-Allah;Nouhoun Belko

  • Small temporal differences in water uptake among varieties of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) are critical for grain yield under terminal drought

    Vincent Vadez;Jana Kholova;Rattan Singh Yadav;Charles Thomas Hash

  • Breeding custom-designed crops for improved drought adaptation

    Rajeev K. Varshney;Rajeev K. Varshney;Rutwik Barmukh;Manish Roorkiwal;Yiping Qi

  • Modelling the effect of plant water use traits on yield and stay-green expression in sorghum

    Jana Kholová;Tharanya Murugesan;Sivasakthi Kaliamoorthy;Srikanth Malayee

  • Drought stress characterization of post-rainy season (rabi) sorghum in India

    Jana Kholová;Greg McLean;Vincent Vadez;Peter Craufurd

  • Response of maize genotypes to salinity stress in relation to osmolytes and metal-ions contents, oxidative stress and antioxidant enzymes activity.

    J. Kholová;R. K. Sairam;R.C. Meena;G. C. Srivastava

  • Water saving traits co-map with a major terminal drought tolerance quantitative trait locus in pearl millet [ Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]

    Jana Kholová;T. Nepolean;C. Tom Hash;A. Supriya;A. Supriya

  • Maize, sorghum, and pearl millet have highly contrasting species strategies to adapt to water stress and climate change-like conditions

    Sunita Choudhary;Sunita Choudhary;Anirban Guha;Jana Kholova;Anand Pandravada

  • Plant vigour QTLs co-map with an earlier reported QTL hotspot for drought tolerance while water saving QTLs map in other regions of the chickpea genome

    Kaliamoorthy Sivasakthi;Kaliamoorthy Sivasakthi;Mahendar Thudi;Murugesan Tharanya;Murugesan Tharanya;Sandip M. Kale

  • CGIAR modeling approaches for resource-constrained scenarios: I. Accelerating crop breeding for a changing climate

    Julian Ramirez-Villegas;Julian Ramirez-Villegas;Anabel Molero Milan;Nickolai Alexandrov;Senthold Asseng

  • In pursuit of a better world: crop improvement and the CGIAR

    Jana Kholová;Milan Oldřich Urban;James Cock;Jairo Arcos

  • Chickpea Genotypes Contrasting for Vigor and Canopy Conductance Also Differ in Their Dependence on Different Water Transport Pathways.

    Kaliamoorthy Sivasakthi;Kaliamoorthy Sivasakthi;Murugesan Tharanya;Murugesan Tharanya;Jana Kholová;Ruth Wangari Muriuki

  • Does a terminal drought tolerance QTL contribute to differences in ROS scavenging enzymes and photosynthetic pigments in pearl millet exposed to drought

    Jana Kholová;Jana Kholová;C. Tom Hash;Marie Kočová;Vincent Vadez

  • Characterization of the main chickpea cropping systems in India using a yield gap analysis approach

    Amir Hajjarpoor;Vincent Vadez;Afshin Soltani;Pooran Gaur

  • Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for water use and crop production traits co-locate with major QTL for tolerance to water deficit in a fine-mapping population of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L. R.Br.)

    Murugesan Tharanya;Murugesan Tharanya;Jana Kholova;Kaliamoorthy Sivasakthi;Kaliamoorthy Sivasakthi;Deepmala Seghal

  • Transpiration efficiency: insights from comparisons of C4 cereal species.

    Vincent Vadez;Vincent Vadez;Sunita Choudhary;Jana Kholová;C Tom Hash

  • Osmolytes and metal ions accumulation, oxidative stress and antioxidant enzymes activity as determinants of salinity stress tolerance in maize genotypes

    Jana Kholova;Jana Kholova;Raj Kumar Sairam;Ramesh C. Meena

Frequent Co-Authors

Vincent Vadez
Vincent Vadez Institut de Recherche pour le Développement
Rattan Yadav
Rattan Yadav Aberystwyth University
Rajeev K. Varshney
Rajeev K. Varshney Murdoch University
C. Tom Hash
C. Tom Hash International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
Graeme L. Hammer
Graeme L. Hammer University of Queensland
Pooran M. Gaur
Pooran M. Gaur University of Western Australia
Matthew P. Reynolds
Matthew P. Reynolds International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Rakesh K. Srivastava
Rakesh K. Srivastava International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
Parbodh C. Sharma
Parbodh C. Sharma Central Soil Salinity Research Institute
Julian Ramirez-Villegas
Julian Ramirez-Villegas Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

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 Jana Kholova

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles