World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
50
Citations
9898
World Ranking
4963
National Ranking
1827

Mark N. Maunder 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 Mark N. Maunder 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: 159 publications — 47th percentile

47% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark N. Maunder 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 Mark N. Maunder 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: 50 D-Index — 50th percentile

50% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches

    Mark N. Maunder;André E. Punt

  • Interpreting catch per unit effort data to assess the status of individual stocks and communities

    Unknown

  • A review of integrated analysis in fisheries stock assessment

    Mark N. Maunder;André E. Punt

  • Biomass, size, and trophic status of top predators in the Pacific Ocean.

    Unknown

  • Contemporary fisheries stock assessment: many issues still remain

    Unknown

  • Methods for standardizing CPUE and how to select among them

    Unknown

  • Review of integrated size-structured models for stock assessment of hard-to-age crustacean and mollusc species

    Andre E. Punt;Andre E. Punt;TzuChuan Huang;Mark N. Maunder

  • Estimating natural mortality within a fisheries stock assessment model: An evaluation using simulation analysis based on twelve stock assessments

    Unknown

  • Fisheries: Decline of Pacific tuna populations exaggerated?

    Unknown

  • Strategies for fitting nonlinear ecological models in R, AD Model Builder, and BUGS

    Benjamin M. Bolker;Beth Gardner;Mark Maunder;Casper W. Berg

  • Can steepness of the stock–recruitment relationship be estimated in fishery stock assessment models?

    Unknown

  • The Ecuadorian Artisanal Fishery for Large Pelagics: Species Composition and Spatio-Temporal Dynamics.

    Unknown

  • A general framework for integrating environmental time series into stock assessment models: model description, simulation testing, and example

    Mark N. Maunder;George M. Watters

  • Does habitat or depth influence catch rates of pelagic species

    Unknown

  • A-SCALA: an age-structured statistical catch-at-length analysis for assessing tuna stocks in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean

    Unknown

  • A general framework for integrating the standardization of catch per unit of effort into stock assessment models

    Unknown

  • Estimation of recruitment in catch-at-age models

    Unknown

  • Effects of biological, economic and management factors on tuna and billfish stock status

    Maite Pons;Trevor A. Branch;Michael C. Melnychuk;Olaf P. Jensen

  • A review of estimation methods for natural mortality and their performance in the context of fishery stock assessment

    Unknown

  • Comparing predictions of extinction risk using models and subjective judgement

    Michael A. McCarthy;Michael A. McCarthy;David Keith;Justine Tietjen;Mark A. Burgman

Frequent Co-Authors

André E. Punt
André E. Punt University of Washington
James T. Thorson
James T. Thorson National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Brice X. Semmens
Brice X. Semmens University of California, San Diego
Dale Squires
Dale Squires University of California, San Diego
Ana M. Parma
Ana M. Parma National Scientific and Technical Research Council
Michael A. McCarthy
Michael A. McCarthy University of Melbourne
Stephen T. Buckland
Stephen T. Buckland University of St Andrews
Ray Hilborn
Ray Hilborn University of Washington
Steven E. Campana
Steven E. Campana University of Iceland
Peter E. Andersen
Peter E. Andersen Technical University of Denmark

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 students interested in Environmental Sciences, exploring related online degrees can broaden career opportunities. Many learners start with affordable options like the cheapest online general studies degree programs, which provide a flexible foundation for various environmental fields without significant financial burden.

Alternatively, some may prefer programs that are less demanding academically. The easiest bachelors degree options often include interdisciplinary studies that complement environmental science knowledge while allowing students to complete their degree efficiently.

Specialized degrees such as geology play a crucial role in understanding Earth processes. Pursuing a geology online degree equips students with skills to analyze soil, minerals, and rock formations essential for environmental assessments and natural resource management.

In addition, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are vital tools in environmental monitoring and management. Earning a gis degree provides expertise in mapping and spatial data analysis, offering strong career prospects in both government and private sectors.

Best Scientists Citing Mark N. Maunder

Recently Published Articles