World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Biology and Biochemistry

D-Index
58
Citations
10714
World Ranking
13319
National Ranking
1039

Mark Lawler 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 Mark Lawler 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: 291 publications — 77th percentile

77% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark Lawler 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 Mark Lawler 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: 58 D-Index — 34th percentile

34% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mark Lawler is affiliated with Queen's University Belfast in the United Kingdom and has a research focus primarily in the field of Medicine, with a substantial body of work related to Oncology. Their research spans multiple subfields including Oncology, Economics and Econometrics, Molecular Biology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, and Cancer Research.

Lawler's work frequently addresses topics such as Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer, Global Cancer Incidence and Screening, COVID-19 and healthcare impacts, Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics, Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy, Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection, and Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies.

Their recent publications include:

  • Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study (2020, The Lancet Oncology)
  • Estimated impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer services and excess 1-year mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity: near real-time data on cancer care, cancer deaths and a population-based cohort study (2020, BMJ Open)
  • A harmonized meta-knowledgebase of clinical interpretations of somatic genomic variants in cancer (2020, Nature Genetics)
  • Estimating excess mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity in the COVID-19 emergency (2020, bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory))
  • The economic burden of colorectal cancer across Europe: a population-based cost-of-illness study (2021, The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology)

Lawler collaborates frequently with a number of other researchers, including:

  • Richard Sullivan
  • Philip D. Dunne
  • Tim Maughan
  • Simon J. Leedham
  • Raheleh Amirkhah

Their publications appear predominantly in venues such as The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Cancer Policy, bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), European Journal of Cancer, and Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Best Publications

  • Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study.

    Amit Sud;Bethany Torr;Michael E Jones;John Broggio

  • Integrating Genomics into Healthcare: A Global Responsibility

    Zornitza Stark;Lena Dolman;Teri A. Manolio;Brad Ozenberger

  • Activated protein C inhibits lipopolysaccharide-induced nuclear translocation of nuclear factor kappaB (NF-kappaB) and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) production in the THP-1 monocytic cell line.

    B. White;M. Schmidt;C. Murphy;W. Livingstone

  • Autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa (ADRP): Localization of an ADRP gene to the long arm of chromosome 3

    Peter McWilliam;G.Jane Farrar;Paul Kenna;Daniel G. Bradley

  • Estimated impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer services and excess 1-year mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity: near real-time data on cancer care, cancer deaths and a population-based cohort study.

    Alvina G Lai;Laura Pasea;Amitava Banerjee;Amitava Banerjee;Geoff Hall;Geoff Hall

  • Evaluation of mixed chimerism by in vitro amplification of dinucleotide repeat sequences using the polymerase chain reaction

    M Lawler;P Humphries;SR McCann

  • Expression of the NF‐κB targets BCL2 and BIRC5/Survivin characterizes small B‐cell and aggressive B‐cell lymphomas, respectively

    Lorraine Tracey;Alberto Pérez-Rosado;Maria Jesús Artiga;Francisca I Camacho

  • Cyclosporin A and short-term methotrexate versus cyclosporin A as graft versus host disease prophylaxis in patients with severe aplastic anemia given allogeneic bone marrow transplantation from an HLA-identical sibling: results of a GITMO/EBMT randomized trial.

    F Locatelli;B Bruno;M Zecca;M T Van-Lint

  • Mycosis fungoides shows concurrent deregulation of multiple genes involved in the TNF signaling pathway: an expression profile study

    Lorraine Tracey;Raquel Villuendas;Ana Maria Dotor;Inmaculada Spiteri

  • 4-Amino-1,8-naphthalimide-based Tröger's bases as high affinity DNA targeting fluorescent supramolecular scaffolds

    Emma B Veale;Daniel O Frimannsson;Mark Lawler;Thorfinnur Gunnlaugsson

  • Targeting c-MET in gastrointestinal tumours: rationale, opportunities and challenges

    Conor A Bradley;Manuel Salto-Tellez;Manuel Salto-Tellez;Pierre Laurent-Puig;Alberto Bardelli

  • Estimating excess mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity in the COVID-19 emergency

    Alvina G. Lai;Laura Pasea;Amitava Banerjee;Amitava Banerjee;Spiros Denaxas

  • Challenging the Cancer Molecular Stratification Dogma: Intratumoral Heterogeneity Undermines Consensus Molecular Subtypes and Potential Diagnostic Value in Colorectal Cancer

    Philip D. Dunne;Darragh G. McArt;Conor A. Bradley;Paul G. O'Reilly

  • Hypoxia in prostate cancer: a powerful shield against tumour destruction?

    L. Marignol;M. Coffey;M. Lawler;D. Hollywood

  • The epigenome as a therapeutic target in prostate cancer

    Antoinette S Perry;R William G Watson;Mark Lawler;Donal Hollywood

  • Autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa: linkage to rhodopsin and evidence for genetic heterogeneity

    G. Jane Farrar;Peter McWilliam;Daniel G. Bradley;Paul Kenna

  • A harmonized meta-knowledgebase of clinical interpretations of somatic genomic variants in cancer.

    Alex H Wagner;Brian Walsh;Georgia Mayfield;David Tamborero;David Tamborero

  • Personalized management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: Expert recommendations of the European Society of Surgical Oncology, European Society of Coloproctology, International Society of Geriatric Oncology, and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer

    Isacco Montroni;Giampaolo Ugolini;Nicole M. Saur;Antonino Spinelli

  • Wilms' tumor gene 1 (WT1) expression in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a wide range of WT1 expression levels, its impact on prognosis and minimal residual disease monitoring

    L Boublikova;M Kalinova;J Ryan;F Quinn

  • The emerging roles of DNA methylation in the clinical management of prostate cancer.

    Antoinette S Perry;Ruth Foley;Karen Woodson;Mark Lawler

Frequent Co-Authors

Manuel Salto-Tellez
Manuel Salto-Tellez Queen's University Belfast
Patrick G. Johnston
Patrick G. Johnston Queen's University Belfast
Peter Humphries
Peter Humphries Trinity College Dublin
Giuseppe Campiani
Giuseppe Campiani University of Siena
Pierre Laurent-Puig
Pierre Laurent-Puig Université Paris Cité
Peter Selby
Peter Selby University of Leeds
Charles L. Sawyers
Charles L. Sawyers Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Clare Turnbull
Clare Turnbull Institute of Cancer Research
Judith C. W. Marsh
Judith C. W. Marsh King's College London
Jochen H. M. Prehn
Jochen H. M. Prehn Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

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

Studying Biology and Biochemistry in the USA opens up a wide range of career opportunities, many of which can be accessed through online education. With healthcare and life sciences fields constantly evolving, flexible online programs are making it easier than ever to specialize and advance your career.

For those interested in the administration side of healthcare, the health information management online programs offer training in organizing and protecting medical data—crucial for modern hospitals and clinics. If you’re seeking a role with strong demand and growth, exploring the job outlook for medical billing and coding can help you understand opportunities in healthcare revenue cycle management.

Nutrition is another high-impact field. Earning a nutrition masters online equips you to address public health issues, counsel clients, or conduct research. Meanwhile, technology-focused pathways such as ultrasound tech programs online prepare students for essential diagnostic roles in healthcare.

Whether you aspire to clinical practice, health administration, or research, these online degrees offer affordable, flexible options that align with biology and biochemistry backgrounds.

Best Scientists Citing Mark Lawler

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles