World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 114 4780 2589 340 43578

Jane C. Weeks publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Jane C. Weeks between 1991 and 2016, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Jane C. Weeks published across 26 years, from 1991 to 2016, averaging 13.1 papers a year. Output peaked at 39 publications in 2011. 11 of the 340 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1991 to 2016. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 39. Peak 39 publications in 2011. 1991: 2 publications 1992: 2 publications 1993: 0 publications 1994: 4 publications 1995: 1 publication 1996: 4 publications 1997: 6 publications 1998: 10 publications 1999: 5 publications 2000: 14 publications 2001: 11 publications 2002: 11 publications 2003: 18 publications 2004: 19 publications 2005: 19 publications 2006: 23 publications 2007: 14 publications 2008: 27 publications 2009: 12 publications 2010: 21 publications 2011: 39 publications 2012: 32 publications 2013: 20 publications 2014: 15 publications 2015: 8 publications 2016: 3 publications
1991 2016

340 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Jane C. Weeks: publications per year, 1991 to 2016
Year Publications
1991 2
1992 2
1993 0
1994 4
1995 1
1996 4
1997 6
1998 10
1999 5
2000 14
2001 11
2002 11
2003 18
2004 19
2005 19
2006 23
2007 14
2008 27
2009 12
2010 21
2011 39
2012 32
2013 20
2014 15
2015 8
2016 3
Total 340
Download as CSV

Jane C. Weeks 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 Jane C. Weeks 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, 321–340 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: 340 publications — 25th percentile

25% 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
261–280 722
281–300 768
301–320 834
321–340 895 340
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

Jane C. Weeks 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 Jane C. Weeks 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, 114–115 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: 114 D-Index — 77th percentile

77% 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
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
114–115 393 114
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

Overview

Jane C. Weeks was affiliated with Harvard University in the United States. Their research primarily focused on Medicine, with a significant concentration in Oncology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, as well as Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism.

Their work spanned several key topics including Cancer Treatment and Pharmacology, Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies, Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes, Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments, Cancer survivorship and care, and Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies.

They published research in various venues, frequently contributing to UNC Libraries, as well as Supportive Care in Cancer and Research Square. Notable recent papers included:

  • Chemotherapy use and patient treatment preferences in advanced colorectal cancer: A prospective cohort study, 2020, UNC Libraries
  • Does a multidisciplinary menopausal symptoms after cancer clinic reduce symptoms?, 2021, Supportive Care in Cancer
  • Does a Multidisciplinary Menopausal Symptoms after Cancer Clinic Reduce Symptoms?, 2021, Research Square (Research Square)
  • Early dissemination of bevacizumab for advanced colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study, 2020, UNC Libraries
  • Comparative Effectiveness of Oxaliplatin vs Non-Oxaliplatin-containing Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer, 2020, UNC Libraries

Throughout their career, Jane C. Weeks frequently collaborated with other researchers. Their most common co-authors included:

  • Katherine L. Kahn
  • S. Yousuf Zafar
  • Jennifer L. Malin
  • Steven C. Grambow
  • David H. Abbott

The research contributions of Jane C. Weeks spanned multiple disciplines within medical science, with a prominent emphasis on cancer-related studies, particularly colorectal and gastric cancers, treatment efficacy, and patient-centered outcomes such as symptom management and survivorship. Their work also included investigations into menopausal symptom management in cancer patients, linking oncology with endocrine health.

Best Publications

  • 2000 Update of Recommendations for the Use of Hematopoietic Colony-Stimulating Factors: Evidence-Based, Clinical Practice Guidelines*

    Thomas J. Smith;Howard Ozer;Langdon L. Miller;Charles A. Schiffer

  • Symptoms and suffering at the end of life in children with cancer.

    Joanne Wolfe;Holcombe E. Grier;Neil Klar;Sarah B. Levin

  • Relationship Between Cancer Patients' Predictions of Prognosis and Their Treatment Preferences

    Jane Weeks;E. Francis Cook;Steven J. O'Day;Lynn M. Peterson

  • Patients’ Expectations about Effects of Chemotherapy for Advanced Cancer

    Jane C. Weeks;Paul J. Catalano;Angel Cronin;Matthew D. Finkelman

  • Aggressiveness of Cancer Care Near the End of Life: Is It a Quality-of-Care Issue?

    Craig C. Earle;Mary Beth Landrum;Jeffrey M. Souza;Bridget A. Neville

  • Trends in the Aggressiveness of Cancer Care Near the End of Life

    Craig C. Earle;Bridget A. Neville;Mary Beth Landrum;John Z. Ayanian

  • Short-term Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer: A Randomized Trial

    Jane C. Weeks;Heidi Nelson;Shari Gelber;Daniel Sargent

  • Identifying Potential Indicators of the Quality of End-of-Life Cancer Care From Administrative Data

    Craig C. Earle;Elyse R. Park;Bonnie Lai;Jane C. Weeks

  • Use of alternative medicine by women with early-stage breast cancer.

    Harold J. Burstein;Shari Gelber;Edward Guadagnoli;Jane C. Weeks

  • End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences.

    Jennifer W. Mack;Jane C. Weeks;Alexi A. Wright;Susan D. Block

  • Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey

    Steven Joffe;Steven Joffe;E Francis Cook;Paul D Cleary;Jeffrey W Clark

  • Clinicopathologic features, patterns of recurrence, and survival among women with triple‐negative breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

    Nancy U. Lin;Ann Vanderplas;Melissa E. Hughes;Richard L. Theriault

  • Single-Agent Versus Combination Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (study 9730)

    Rogerio C. Lilenbaum;James E. Herndon;Marcy A. List;Chris Desch

  • Associations Between End-of-Life Discussion Characteristics and Care Received Near Death: A Prospective Cohort Study

    Jennifer W. Mack;Angel Cronin;Nancy L. Keating;Nathan Taback

  • Decision analysis - Effects of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy on life expectancy among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations

    Deborah Schrag;Karen M. Kuntz;Judy E. Garber;Jane C. Weeks

  • Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines

    John Fetting;Paul Anderson;Harrison Ball;John Benear

  • Understanding of prognosis among parents of children who died of cancer: impact on treatment goals and integration of palliative care.

    Joanne Wolfe;Neil Klar;Holcombe E. Grier;Janet Duncan

  • Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects

    Steven Joffe;E. Francis Cook;Paul D. Cleary;Jeffrey W. Clark

  • Hepatic Arterial Infusion Versus Systemic Therapy for Hepatic Metastases From Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial of Efficacy, Quality of Life, and Molecular Markers (CALGB 9481)

    Nancy E. Kemeny;Donna Niedzwiecki;Donna R. Hollis;Heinz-Josef Lenz

  • End-of-life care discussions among patients with advanced cancer: a cohort study.

    Jennifer W. Mack;Angel Cronin;Nathan Taback;Haiden A. Huskamp

Frequent Co-Authors

Stephen B. Edge
Stephen B. Edge Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Katherine L. Kahn
Katherine L. Kahn University of California, Los Angeles
Richard L. Theriault
Richard L. Theriault The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Deborah Schrag
Deborah Schrag Harvard University
Karen M. Kuntz
Karen M. Kuntz University of Minnesota
Nancy L. Keating
Nancy L. Keating Harvard University
Milton C. Weinstein
Milton C. Weinstein Harvard University
Craig C. Earle
Craig C. Earle University of Toronto
Eric P. Winer
Eric P. Winer Yale University
Stuart R. Lipsitz
Stuart R. Lipsitz Brigham and Women's Hospital

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

Exploring healthcare careers outside of traditional medicine opens up a range of opportunities. For students looking for flexible and affordable options, online degrees provide access to specialized fields that are in high demand across the healthcare sector.

Those interested in health data can pursue rhit programs online, which prepare graduates to manage patient records and ensure the security of sensitive information. If you prefer administrative roles, affordable medical billing and coding programs offer the skills needed to process health insurance claims and support healthcare providers.

For students aiming to enter advanced clinical practice, exploring cheap online fnp programs leads to a rewarding career as a family nurse practitioner. Additionally, if you’re concerned about tuition costs, it’s important to consider how much is online nursing school before enrolling.

Each of these pathways provides unique ways to make an impact in healthcare, often with the flexibility and convenience of online study.

Best Scientists Citing Jane C. Weeks

Recently Published Articles