World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
89
Citations
48871
World Ranking
12426
National Ranking
1164

Malcolm R. Macleod 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 Malcolm R. Macleod sits on this spectrum.

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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 309 publications — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Malcolm R. Macleod 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 Malcolm R. Macleod sits on this spectrum.

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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 89 D-Index — 38th percentile

38% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Malcolm R. Macleod is affiliated with the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with significant contributions in subfields such as statistics, probability and uncertainty, small animals, neurology, public health, environmental and occupational health, and molecular biology.

The scientist has been involved in multiple main research topics, including meta-analysis and systematic reviews, animal testing and alternatives, acute ischemic stroke management, ethics in clinical research, health and medical research impacts, cell image analysis techniques, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis research.

Some of the recent papers associated with this researcher include:

  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research, 2020, published in PLoS Biology
  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research, 2020, published in Experimental Physiology
  • Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0, 2020, published in PLoS Biology
  • Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: a UK-wide surveillance study, 2020, published in The Lancet Psychiatry
  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research*, 2020, published in Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism

The researcher collaborates frequently with several co-authors, including:

  • Emily S. Sena
  • Georgia Salanti
  • Virginia Chiocchia
  • Ulrich Dirnagl
  • Jing Liao

Malcolm R. Macleod's work is published in various scientific venues, with recurrent appearances in:

  • Wellcome Open Research
  • BMJ Open Science
  • F1000Research
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • PLoS Biology

Best Publications

  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

    Nathalie Percie du Sert;Viki Hurst;Amrita Ahluwalia;Sabina Alam

  • Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.

    Nathalie Percie du Sert;Amrita Ahluwalia;Sabina Alam;Marc T. Avey

  • Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis

    John P A Ioannidis;Sander Greenland;Mark A Hlatky;Muin J Khoury

  • 1,026 Experimental treatments in acute stroke

    Victoria E O'Collins;Malcolm R Macleod;Geoffrey A Donnan;Laura L Horky

  • Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies

    H Bart van der Worp;David W Howells;Emily S. Sena;Emily S. Sena;Michelle J. Porritt

  • Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: a UK-wide surveillance study.

    Aravinthan Varatharaj;Aravinthan Varatharaj;Naomi Thomas;Mark A Ellul;Mark A Ellul;Mark A Ellul;Nicholas W S Davies

  • Incidence, prevalence, and predictors of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Marta Seretny;Gillian L. Currie;Emily S. Sena;Sabrina Ramnarine

  • A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research

    Story C. Landis;Susan G. Amara;Khusru Asadullah;Chris P. Austin

  • Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste

    Malcolm R. Macleod;Susan Michie;Ian Roberts;Ulrich Dirnagl

  • Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review

    Pablo Perel;Ian Roberts;Emily Sena;Philipa Wheble

  • Pooling of Animal Experimental Data Reveals Influence of Study Design and Publication Bias

    Malcolm R. Macleod;Tori O’Collins;David W. Howells;Geoffrey A. Donnan

  • Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.

    Emily S. Sena;H. Bart van der Worp;Philip M. W. Bath;David W. Howells

  • Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management

    Rustam Al-Shahi Salman;Elaine Beller;Jonathan Kagan;Elina Hemminki

  • Hypothermia in animal models of acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    H. Bart van der Worp;Emily S. Sena;Geoffrey A. Donnan;David W. Howells

  • Extending thrombolysis to 4·5–9 h and wake-up stroke using perfusion imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

    Bruce C V Campbell;Bruce C V Campbell;Henry Ma;Henry Ma;Peter A Ringleb;Mark W Parsons

  • Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: A practical guide

    H.M. Vesterinen;E.S. Sena;E.S. Sena;K.J. Egan;T.C. Hirst

  • Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench.

    Malcolm R. Macleod;Marc Fisher;Victoria O'Collins;Victoria O'Collins;Emily S. Sena;Emily S. Sena;Emily S. Sena

  • How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke?

    Emily Sena;H. Bart van der Worp;David Howells;Malcolm Macleod

  • Evidence for the Efficacy of NXY-059 in Experimental Focal Cerebral Ischaemia Is Confounded by Study Quality

    Malcolm R. Macleod;H. Bart van der Worp;Emily S. Sena;Emily S. Sena;David W. Howells

  • CN-16INCIDENCE, PREVALENCE AND PREDICTORS OF CHEMOTHERAPY INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

    Marta Seretny;Gillian Currie;Emily Sena;Sabrina Ramnarine

Frequent Co-Authors

Geoffrey A. Donnan
Geoffrey A. Donnan University of Melbourne
Ulrich Dirnagl
Ulrich Dirnagl Charité - University Medicine Berlin
Philip M.W. Bath
Philip M.W. Bath University of Nottingham
Andrew S.C. Rice
Andrew S.C. Rice Imperial College London
Rustam Al-Shahi Salman
Rustam Al-Shahi Salman University of Edinburgh
Joanna M. Wardlaw
Joanna M. Wardlaw University of Edinburgh
Stephen M. Davis
Stephen M. Davis University of Melbourne
Innes C. Cuthill
Innes C. Cuthill University of Bristol
Peter Sandercock
Peter Sandercock University of Edinburgh
Jonathan R. Seckl
Jonathan R. Seckl University of Edinburgh

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 a career in medicine doesn’t have to start and end with a traditional MD degree. There are many flexible online degree programs that offer diverse routes into healthcare professions, often with lower costs and shorter timelines.

For current nurses looking to advance, there are cheapest phd nursing programs and rn to bsn online programs designed to be affordable and accessible. These options help nurses move into advanced practice roles, leadership, or research positions without putting their careers on hold.

Non-nurses or those considering a career switch may be interested in cheapest direct entry msn programs. These programs provide a fast-track into nursing, allowing graduates to enter the workforce quickly.

Entry-level pathways like online adn programs make it easier to start a nursing career. Many programs offer accelerated formats and flexible learning to accommodate different schedules.

Each of these online options offers unique advantages for those pursuing medical and healthcare careers, making it possible to find a path that matches your goals, background, and budget.

Best Scientists Citing Malcolm R. Macleod

Trending Scientists