World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand

Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
47
Citations
6679
World Ranking
5905
National Ranking
80

Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand 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 Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand 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: 174 publications — 53rd percentile

53% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand 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 Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand 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: 47 D-Index — 42nd percentile

42% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand is affiliated with Aarhus University in Denmark. Their research primarily focuses on the environmental science field, encompassing main areas such as materials chemistry, pollution, health, toxicology and mutagenesis, biomedical engineering, and insect science.

Their work covers several key topics, including:

  • Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
  • Environmental toxicology and ecotoxicology
  • Microplastics and plastic pollution
  • Pesticide and herbicide environmental studies
  • Pesticide exposure and toxicity
  • Insect and pesticide research
  • Recycling and waste management techniques

Scott-Fordsmand has contributed articles to several frequent publication venues, such as:

  • Environmental Pollution
  • The Science of The Total Environment
  • Journal of Hazardous Materials
  • Nanomaterials
  • NanoImpact

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Scott-Fordsmand include:

  • Using Machine Learning to make nanomaterials sustainable, 2022, The Science of The Total Environment
  • Ecotoxicological and regulatory aspects of environmental sustainability of nanopesticides, 2020, Journal of Hazardous Materials
  • Epigenetic effects of (nano)materials in environmental species - Cu case study in Enchytraeus crypticus, 2020, Environment International
  • Risk Management Framework for Nano-Biomaterials Used in Medical Devices and Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products, 2020, Materials
  • Plastic pollution - A case study with Enchytraeus crypticus - From micro-to nanoplastics, 2020, Environmental Pollution

The scientist frequently collaborates with other researchers, with notable co-authors including:

  • Mónica J.B. Amorim
  • Susana I.L. Gomes
  • Rita C. Bicho
  • Magda Blosi
  • Anna Luisa Costa

Best Publications

  • Effects of pesticides on soil invertebrates in laboratory studies: a review and analysis using species sensitivity distributions.

    Geoff K. Frampton;Stephan Jänsch;Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand;Jörg Römbke

  • Ecotoxicological and regulatory aspects of environmental sustainability of nanopesticides.

    Renato Grillo;Leonardo F. Fraceto;Mónica J.B. Amorim;Janeck James Scott-Fordsmand

  • Effects of C60 fullerene nanoparticles on soil bacteria and protozoans

    Anders Johansen;Anette L. Pedersen;Keld A. Jensen;Ulrich Karlson

  • Limit-test toxicity screening of selected inorganic nanoparticles to the earthworm Eisenia fetida

    Lars-Henrik Heckmann;Mads B. Hovgaard;Duncan S. Sutherland;Herman Autrup

  • ITS-NANO - Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy

    Vicki Stone;Stefano Pozzi-Mucelli;Lang Tran;Karin Aschberger

  • Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment - report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10

    Agnes G. Oomen;Peter M. J. Bos;Teresa F. Fernandes;Kerstin Hund-Rinke

  • Grouping and Read-Across Approaches for Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials.

    Agnes G. Oomen;Eric A J Bleeker;Peter M J Bos;Fleur van Broekhuizen

  • The toxicity testing of double-walled nanotubes-contaminated food to Eisenia veneta earthworms.

    J.J. Scott-Fordsmand;P.H. Krogh;M. Schaefer;A. Johansen

  • Biomarkers in earthworms.

    Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand;Jason M. Weeks

  • Frameworks and tools for risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials

    Danail Hristozov;Stefania Gottardo;Elena Semenzin;Agnes Oomen

  • Regulatory ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials – proposed modifications of OECD test guidelines based on laboratory experience with silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles

    Kerstin Hund-Rinke;Anders Baun;Denisa Cupi;Teresa F Fernandes

  • Earthworms and humans in vitro: Characterizing evolutionarily conserved stress and immune responses to silver nanoparticles

    Yuya Hayashi;Péter Engelmann;Rasmus Bruno Foldbjerg;Mariann Szabó

  • Importance of contamination history for understanding toxicity of copper to earthworm Eisenia fetica (Oligochaeta: Annelida), using neutral-red retention assay

    Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand;Jason M. Weeks;Stephen P. Hopkin

  • Effects of pesticides on soil invertebrates in model ecosystem and field studies: A review and comparison with laboratory toxicity data

    Stephan Jänsch;Geoff K. Frampton;Jörg Römbke;Paul J. van den Brink

  • Effects of pendimethalin at lower trophic levels—a review

    Morten Strandberg;Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand

  • Mechanisms of response to silver nanoparticles on Enchytraeus albidus (Oligochaeta): survival, reproduction and gene expression profile.

    Susana I.L. Gomes;Amadeu M.V.M. Soares;Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand;Mónica J.B. Amorim

  • Effects of Ag nanomaterials (NM300K) and Ag salt (AgNO3) can be discriminated in a full life cycle long term test with Enchytraeus crypticus.

    Rita C. Bicho;Tânia Ribeiro;Natália P. Rodrigues;Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand

  • Species differences take shape at nanoparticles: Protein corona made of the native repertoire assists cellular interaction

    Yuya Hayashi;Teodora Miclaus;Carsten Scavenius;Katarzyna Kwiatkowska

  • Toxicity of copper nanoparticles and CuCl2 salt to Enchytraeus albidus worms: survival, reproduction and avoidance responses.

    Mónica João Barros Amorim;Janeck James Scott-Fordsmand

  • A heavy metal monitoring-programme in Denmark

    J. Bak;J. Jensen;M.M. Larsen;G. Pritzl

Frequent Co-Authors

Amadeu M.V.M. Soares
Amadeu M.V.M. Soares University of Aveiro
Antonio Marcomini
Antonio Marcomini Ca Foscari University of Venice
Teresa F. Fernandes
Teresa F. Fernandes Heriot-Watt University
Duncan S. Sutherland
Duncan S. Sutherland Aarhus University
Willie J.G.M. Peijnenburg
Willie J.G.M. Peijnenburg Leiden University
Paul Henning Krogh
Paul Henning Krogh Aarhus University
Bernd Nowack
Bernd Nowack Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology
Robert Landsiedel
Robert Landsiedel BASF (United States)
Ulla Vogel
Ulla Vogel Technical University of Denmark
Lutz Mädler
Lutz Mädler University of Bremen

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 passionate about Environmental Sciences, exploring related online degrees can expand career opportunities and interdisciplinary knowledge. A solid foundation in social dynamics can be gained through online sociology bachelor programs, which offer insights into human behavior and societal impacts on the environment.

For educators and professionals aiming to influence environmental education policy or lead community programs, advanced degrees are vital. Programs such as online edd programs no dissertation provide flexible options for earning a doctorate without the extensive dissertation requirement, ideal for working professionals.

Additionally, bridging the gap between educational leadership levels is more accessible with online eds to edd bridge program pathways, which allow educators to advance smoothly from a specialist degree to a doctorate.

For those interested in social welfare aspects linked with environmental justice, pursuing a dsw program offers advanced expertise. These roles often involve working closely with communities affected by environmental issues, making it a valuable career path.

Best Scientists Citing Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles