World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Biology and Biochemistry

D-Index
67
Citations
17987
World Ranking
8137
National Ranking
147

John Ashby publication distribution in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Biology and Biochemistry in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where John Ashby sits on this spectrum.

47–56 publications: 8 scientists 57–66 publications: 35 scientists 67–76 publications: 106 scientists 77–86 publications: 231 scientists 87–96 publications: 414 scientists 97–106 publications: 546 scientists 107–116 publications: 704 scientists 117–126 publications: 849 scientists 127–136 publications: 980 scientists 137–146 publications: 942 scientists 147–156 publications: 969 scientists 157–166 publications: 950 scientists 167–176 publications: 951 scientists 177–186 publications: 915 scientists 187–196 publications: 787 scientists 197–206 publications: 841 scientists 207–216 publications: 735 scientists 217–226 publications: 709 scientists 227–236 publications: 651 scientists 237–246 publications: 605 scientists 247–256 publications: 510 scientists 257–266 publications: 524 scientists 267–276 publications: 434 scientists 277–286 publications: 418 scientists 287–296 publications: 350 scientists 297–306 publications: 363 scientists 307–316 publications: 315 scientists 317–326 publications: 296 scientists 327–336 publications: 261 scientists 337–346 publications: 240 scientists 347–356 publications: 219 scientists 357–366 publications: 197 scientists 367–376 publications: 154 scientists 377–386 publications: 161 scientists 387–396 publications: 155 scientists 397–406 publications: 145 scientists 407–416 publications: 124 scientists 417–426 publications: 112 scientists 427–436 publications: 132 scientists 437–446 publications: 116 scientists 447–456 publications: 99 scientists 457–466 publications: 81 scientists 467–476 publications: 91 scientists 477–486 publications: 80 scientists 487–496 publications: 80 scientists 497–506 publications: 60 scientists 507–516 publications: 36 scientists 517–526 publications: 46 scientists 527–536 publications: 54 scientists 537–546 publications: 44 scientists 547–556 publications: 43 scientists 557–566 publications: 43 scientists 567–576 publications: 42 scientists 577–586 publications: 25 scientists 587–596 publications: 34 scientists 597–606 publications: 23 scientists 607–616 publications: 33 scientists 617–626 publications: 31 scientists 627–636 publications: 27 scientists 637–646 publications: 25 scientists 647–656 publications: 28 scientists 657–666 publications: 34 scientists 667–676 publications: 18 scientists 677–686 publications: 16 scientists 687–696 publications: 10 scientists 697–706 publications: 12 scientists 707–716 publications: 21 scientists 717–726 publications: 12 scientists 727–736 publications: 12 scientists 737–746 publications: 10 scientists 747–756 publications: 7 scientists 757–766 publications: 13 scientists 767–776 publications: 15 scientists 777–786 publications: 13 scientists 787–796 publications: 9 scientists 797–806 publications: 9 scientists 807–816 publications: 7 scientists 817–826 publications: 4 scientists 827–836 publications: 9 scientists 837–846 publications: 7 scientists 847–856 publications: 3 scientists 857–866 publications: 5 scientists 867–876 publications: 5 scientists 877–886 publications: 11 scientists 887–896 publications: 3 scientists 897–906 publications: 4 scientists 907–916 publications: 7 scientists 917–926 publications: 5 scientists 927–936 publications: 6 scientists 937–946 publications: 6 scientists 947–956 publications: 3 scientists 957–966 publications: 7 scientists 967–976 publications: 2 scientists 977–986 publications: 2 scientists 987–996 publications: 1 scientists 997–1,006 publications: 5 scientists 1,007–1,016 publications: 2 scientists 1,017–1,026 publications: 2 scientists 1,027 publications: 1 scientists 1,028+ publications: 100 scientists
47 publications 1,028+

This scientist: 391 publications — 89th percentile

89% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,028 publications or more.

John Ashby D-index placement in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Biology and Biochemistry scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where John Ashby sits on this spectrum.

40–41 D-Index: 80 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 183 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 317 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 504 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 718 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 900 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 1,026 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 1,150 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 1,236 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 1,253 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 1,163 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 1,131 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 1,032 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 897 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 814 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 715 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 709 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 596 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 512 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 473 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 412 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 373 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 358 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 285 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 273 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 227 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 208 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 193 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 153 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 157 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 148 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 120 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 113 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 100 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 86 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 67 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 72 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 73 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 64 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 53 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 60 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 54 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 43 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 38 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 49 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 26 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 18 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 23 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 32 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 32 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 27 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 19 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 22 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 12 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 16 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 14 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 10 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 13 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 10 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 7 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 9 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 13 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 4 scientists 166 D-Index: 4 scientists 167+ D-Index: 98 scientists
40 D-Index 167+

This scientist: 67 D-Index — 59th percentile

59% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 167 D-Index or more.

Overview

John Ashby is a researcher affiliated with Syngenta (Switzerland) based in Switzerland. Their work primarily focuses on the medical field, with specific contributions to epidemiology, neurology, and emergency medicine.

Their research explores several main topics, including:

  • Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation

John Ashby has published in venues such as:

  • Cureus

A recent example of their scholarly work is the publication titled A Narrative Review of the Effects of Internal Jugular Vein Compression on Brain Structure and Function During Periods of Head Impact, published in 2025 in the journal Cureus.

Collaborations are an important aspect of Ashby's research, with frequent co-authors including:

  • Kathryn A Brieck
  • Zachary J Brieck
  • Owen C Phelps
  • Ibolja Černak

Best Publications

  • Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested in rodents by the U.S. NCI/NTP.

    John Ashby;Raymond W. Tennant

  • Some Alkyl Hydroxy Benzoate Preservatives (Parabens) Are Estrogenic

    Edwin J. Routledge;Joanne Parker;Jenny Odum;John Ashby

  • Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the U.S. NTP.

    John Ashby;Raymond W. Tennant

  • An evaluation of 6 short-term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens

    I F Purchase;E Longstaff;J Ashby;J A Styles

  • Mechanistically-based Human Hazard Assessment of Peroxisome Proliferator-induced Hepatocarcinogenesis:

    J. Ashby;A. Brady;C.R. Elcombe;B.M. Elliott

  • The rodent uterotrophic assay: Critical protocol features, studies with nonyl phenols, and comparison with a yeast estrogenicity assay

    J. Odum;P.A. Lefevre;S. Tittensor;D. Paton

  • International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Genotoxicity under extreme culture conditions. A report from ICPEMC Task Group 9

    David Scott;Sheila M. Galloway;Richard R. Marshall;Motoi Ishidate

  • Evaluation of six short term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens and recommendations for their use

    I. F. H. Purchase;E. Longstaff;John Ashby;J. A. Styles

  • Classification according to chemical structure, mutagenicity to Salmonella and level of carcinogenicity of a further 39 chemicals tested for carcinogenicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

    Raymond W. Tennant;John Ashby

  • The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay to screen compounds for in vivo estrogenic responses: phase 1.

    Jun Kanno;Lesley Onyon;Joseph Haseman;Penelope Fenner-Crisp

  • The single cell gel electrophoresis assay for induced DNA damage (comet assay): measurement of tail length and moment.

    J. Ashby;H. Tinwell;P.A. Lefevre;M.A. Browne

  • Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity

    John Ashby

  • The prospects for a simplified and internationally harmonized approach to the detection of possible human carcinogens and mutagens.

    John Ashby

  • Does carcinogenic potency correlate with mutagenic potency in the Ames assay

    John Ashby;J. A. Styles

  • Safety evaluation of phytosterol esters. Part 1. Assessment of oestrogenicity using a combination of in vivo and in vitro assays.

    V.A Baker;P.A Hepburn;S.J Kennedy;P.A Jones

  • The peripubertal male rat assay as an alternative to the Hershberger castrated male rat assay for the detection of anti-androgens, oestrogens and metabolic modulators

    J. Ashby;P. A. Lefevre

  • The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay. Phase 2: Dose-response studies

    Jun Kanno;Lesley Onyon;Shyamal Peddada;John Ashby

  • Structure activity relationships in skin sensitization using the murine local lymph node assay

    J Ashby;D A Basketter;D Paton;I Kimber

  • Critical review and evaluation of the uterotrophic bioassay for the identification of possible estrogen agonists and antagonists: in support of the validation of the OECD uterotrophic protocols for the laboratory rodent. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    J William Owens;John Ashby

  • Phenotypic Anchoring of Gene Expression Changes during Estrogen-Induced Uterine Growth

    Jonathan G. Moggs;Helen Tinwell;Tracey Spurway;Hur Song Chang

Frequent Co-Authors

Ian Kimber
Ian Kimber University of Manchester
Diana Anderson
Diana Anderson University of Bradford
John P. Sumpter
John P. Sumpter Brunel University London
James M. Parry
James M. Parry Swansea University
Peter Schmezer
Peter Schmezer German Cancer Research Center
Colin F. Arlett
Colin F. Arlett University of Sussex
Raymond W. Tennant
Raymond W. Tennant National Institutes of Health
Errol Zeiger
Errol Zeiger National Institutes of Health
James L. Maggs
James L. Maggs University of Liverpool
Joseph K. Haseman
Joseph K. Haseman National Institutes of Health

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

Pursuing studies in Biology and Biochemistry opens the door to a variety of rewarding career paths, many of which can be accessed or advanced through online education. For students interested in the administrative side of health care, jobs in medical billing and coding remain in high demand. The medical billing and coding job outlook is positive, offering flexibility and opportunities to work remotely.

If you are seeking leadership roles in managing patient data, an online health information management degree can provide the necessary skills and credentials, often at a more affordable cost compared to on-campus alternatives.

Those passionate about nutrition and wellness can consider advancing their expertise through a nutrition masters online, which prepares graduates for roles in clinical nutrition, research, and public health.

Additionally, individuals interested in diagnostic imaging can look into online sonography certificate programs that provide specialized training and a pathway into this dynamic healthcare profession.

Best Scientists Citing John Ashby