World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
43
Citations
6574
World Ranking
4481
National Ranking
762

Nina Hallowell publication distribution in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Nina Hallowell sits on this spectrum.

44–53 publications: 28 scientists 54–63 publications: 61 scientists 64–73 publications: 161 scientists 74–83 publications: 225 scientists 84–93 publications: 301 scientists 94–103 publications: 390 scientists 104–113 publications: 406 scientists 114–123 publications: 474 scientists 124–133 publications: 453 scientists 134–143 publications: 434 scientists 144–153 publications: 407 scientists 154–163 publications: 411 scientists 164–173 publications: 391 scientists 174–183 publications: 313 scientists 184–193 publications: 319 scientists 194–203 publications: 304 scientists 204–213 publications: 285 scientists 214–223 publications: 246 scientists 224–233 publications: 213 scientists 234–243 publications: 170 scientists 244–253 publications: 167 scientists 254–263 publications: 162 scientists 264–273 publications: 138 scientists 274–283 publications: 138 scientists 284–293 publications: 113 scientists 294–303 publications: 106 scientists 304–313 publications: 95 scientists 314–323 publications: 101 scientists 324–333 publications: 81 scientists 334–343 publications: 69 scientists 344–353 publications: 56 scientists 354–363 publications: 36 scientists 364–373 publications: 42 scientists 374–383 publications: 41 scientists 384–393 publications: 44 scientists 394–403 publications: 27 scientists 404–413 publications: 30 scientists 414–423 publications: 20 scientists 424–433 publications: 29 scientists 434–443 publications: 29 scientists 444–453 publications: 25 scientists 454–463 publications: 19 scientists 464–473 publications: 21 scientists 474–483 publications: 11 scientists 484–493 publications: 17 scientists 494–503 publications: 7 scientists 504–513 publications: 6 scientists 514–523 publications: 12 scientists 524–533 publications: 10 scientists 534–543 publications: 7 scientists 544–553 publications: 6 scientists 554–563 publications: 12 scientists 564–569 publications: 8 scientists 570+ publications: 100 scientists
44 publications 570+

This scientist: 148 publications — 40th percentile

40% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more.

Nina Hallowell D-index placement in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Nina Hallowell sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 177 scientists 31 D-Index: 210 scientists 32 D-Index: 222 scientists 33 D-Index: 188 scientists 34 D-Index: 181 scientists 35 D-Index: 243 scientists 36 D-Index: 261 scientists 37 D-Index: 272 scientists 38 D-Index: 278 scientists 39 D-Index: 300 scientists 40 D-Index: 297 scientists 41 D-Index: 308 scientists 42 D-Index: 313 scientists 43 D-Index: 300 scientists 44 D-Index: 269 scientists 45 D-Index: 260 scientists 46 D-Index: 228 scientists 47 D-Index: 251 scientists 48 D-Index: 203 scientists 49 D-Index: 186 scientists 50 D-Index: 187 scientists 51 D-Index: 166 scientists 52 D-Index: 138 scientists 53 D-Index: 141 scientists 54 D-Index: 131 scientists 55 D-Index: 137 scientists 56 D-Index: 109 scientists 57 D-Index: 129 scientists 58 D-Index: 95 scientists 59 D-Index: 105 scientists 60 D-Index: 106 scientists 61 D-Index: 86 scientists 62 D-Index: 94 scientists 63 D-Index: 77 scientists 64 D-Index: 79 scientists 65 D-Index: 59 scientists 66 D-Index: 68 scientists 67 D-Index: 51 scientists 68 D-Index: 49 scientists 69 D-Index: 40 scientists 70 D-Index: 43 scientists 71 D-Index: 40 scientists 72 D-Index: 50 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 43 scientists 75 D-Index: 45 scientists 76 D-Index: 45 scientists 77 D-Index: 30 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 31 scientists 80 D-Index: 29 scientists 81 D-Index: 18 scientists 82 D-Index: 21 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 15 scientists 85 D-Index: 15 scientists 86 D-Index: 19 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 12 scientists 89 D-Index: 7 scientists 90 D-Index: 19 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 13 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 13 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 7 scientists 97 D-Index: 6 scientists 98 D-Index: 6 scientists 99 D-Index: 6 scientists 100+ D-Index: 97 scientists
30 D-Index 100+

This scientist: 43 D-Index — 46th percentile

46% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more.

Overview

Nina Hallowell is affiliated with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily focuses on the intersection of medicine, ethics, and technology, with significant contributions to fields such as public health, environmental and occupational health, health informatics, genetics, physiology, and artificial intelligence.

The scientist's work spans multiple specialized topics, including:

  • Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
  • Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • BRCA Gene Mutations in Cancer
  • Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Key publications by Nina Hallowell include:

  • "I don't think people are ready to trust these algorithms at face value": trust and the use of machine learning algorithms in the diagnosis of rare disease (2022), published in BMC Medical Ethics
  • The impact of artificial intelligence on the person-centred, doctor-patient relationship: some problems and solutions (2023), published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
  • COVID-19 and Contact Tracing Apps: Ethical Challenges for a Social Experiment on a Global Scale (2020), published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
  • The ethical challenges of artificial intelligence-driven digital pathology (2022), published in The Journal of Pathology Clinical Research
  • Governing AI-Driven Health Research: Are IRBs Up to the Task? (2021), published in Ethics & Human Research

The scientist frequently collaborates with the following coauthors:

  • Angeliki Kerasidou
  • Francis McKay
  • Federica Lucivero
  • Darren Treanor
  • Anneke Lucassen

Publications by Nina Hallowell often appear in distinguished academic venues such as:

  • European Journal of Human Genetics
  • SSM - Qualitative Research in Health
  • The Journal of Pathology Clinical Research
  • BMC Medical Ethics
  • Journal of Medical Ethics

Their research output demonstrates a strong emphasis on the ethical dimensions of emerging technologies in healthcare, particularly focusing on artificial intelligence applications and their societal impacts, patient trust, and regulatory challenges.

Best Publications

  • Doing the right thing: genetic risk and responsibility

    Nina Hallowell

  • ‘I can't do any serious exercise’: barriers to physical activity amongst people of Pakistani and Indian origin with Type 2 diabetes

    J Lawton;N Ahmad;L Hanna;M Douglas

  • Attentional bias to threat: roles of trait anxiety, stressful events, and awareness.

    Karin Mogg;Brendan P. Bradley;Nina Hallowell

  • Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information

    Nina Hallowell;Claire Foster;Ros Eeles;A. Ardern-Jones

  • Family Communication and Genetic Counseling: The Case of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

    Josephine Green;Martin Richards;Frances Murton;Helen Statham

  • 'We should change ourselves, but we can't': accounts of food and eating practices amongst British Pakistanis and Indians with type 2 diabetes.

    Julia Lawton;Naureen Ahmad;Lisa Hanna;Margaret Douglas

  • Guilt, blame and responsibility: men's understanding of their role in the transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations within their family.

    Nina Hallowell;Audrey Arden-Jones;Ros Eeles;Claire Foster

  • Accommodating risk: Responses to BRCA1/2 genetic testing of women who have had cancer

    N Hallowell;C Foster;R Eeles;A Ardern-Jones

  • Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: patterns, priorities and problems.

    N. Hallowell;A. Ardern-Jones;R. Eeles;C.L. Foster

  • Reflections on Research: the realities of doing research in the social sciences

    Nina Hallowell;Julia Lawton;Susan Gregory

  • An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research

    Nina Hallowell;S. Cooke;G. Crawford;A. Lucassen

  • Contextualising Accounts of Illness: Notions of Responsibility and Blame in White and South Asian Respondents' Accounts of Diabetes Causation.

    Julia Lawton;Naureen Ahmad;Elizabeth A. Peel;Nina Hallowell

  • Women's need for information before attending genetic counselling for familial breast or ovarian cancer: a questionnaire, interview, and observational study.

    Nina Hallowell;F Murton;H Statham;J M Green

  • Perceptions and experiences of taking oral hypoglycaemic agents among people of Pakistani and Indian origin: qualitative study

    Julia Lawton;Naureen Ahmad;Nina Hallowell;Lisa Hanna

  • Genetic testing for women previously diagnosed with breast/ovarian cancer: examining the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation searching.

    N Hallowell;C Foster;A Ardern-Jones;R Eeles

  • "Talking About Chance": The Presentation of Risk Information During Genetic Counseling for Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

    Nina Hallowell;Helen Statham;Frances Murton;Jo Green

  • ‘You don’t want to lose your ovaries because you think ‘I might become a man' ’. Women's perceptions of prophylactic surgery as a cancer risk management option

    Nina Hallowell

  • Men's decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family.

    N. Hallowell;A. Ardern-Jones;R. Eeles;C. Foster

  • A qualitative study of the information needs of high-risk women undergoing prophylactic oophorectomy.

    Nina Hallowell

  • Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications

    Susmita Chowdhury;Tom Dent;Nora Pashayan;Alison Hall

  • COVID-19 and Contact Tracing Apps: Ethical Challenges for a Social Experiment on a Global Scale.

    Federica Lucivero;Nina Hallowell;Stephanie Johnson;Barbara Prainsack;Barbara Prainsack

Frequent Co-Authors

Maggie Watson
Maggie Watson University of Strathclyde
Claire Foster
Claire Foster University of Southampton
Rosalind A. Eeles
Rosalind A. Eeles Institute of Cancer Research
Michael Parker
Michael Parker University of Oxford
Phyllis Butow
Phyllis Butow University of Sydney
Ari Haukkala
Ari Haukkala University of Helsinki
Rury R. Holman
Rury R. Holman University of Oxford
Bettina Meiser
Bettina Meiser University of New South Wales
Hanna Konttinen
Hanna Konttinen University of Helsinki
Barbara Prainsack
Barbara Prainsack University of Vienna

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 Social Sciences and Humanities in the USA opens up a variety of online degree options and career pathways. Many prospective students seek flexible and budget-friendly options, making cheap msw programs online an attractive choice for those interested in social work. These programs allow you to start or advance your career in social services with a manageable investment.

If your interest leans toward behavior analysis, accredited bcba online masters programs are designed to prepare you for certification and clinical practice. Many programs also offer accelerated pathways. For example, one year msw programs are ideal for those who want to fast-track their education and move quickly into rewarding roles.

Psychology is another popular path, with numerous accredited schools offering the quickest psychology degree options online. These programs make it possible to gain core skills and credentials in less time, supporting rapid career advancement. Whether you’re seeking speed, affordability, or flexibility, there are plenty of reputable online degrees to match your ambitions in these fields.

Best Scientists Citing Nina Hallowell

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles