World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
44
Citations
6242
World Ranking
6853
National Ranking
2441

Scott L. Painter 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 Scott L. Painter 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: 185 publications — 58th percentile

58% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Scott L. Painter 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 Scott L. Painter 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: 44 D-Index — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Scott L. Painter is affiliated with Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States. Their work primarily spans the fields of Environmental Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences, with extensive focus on water-related subfields including Water Science and Technology, Atmospheric Science, Environmental Engineering, Environmental Chemistry, and Global and Planetary Change.

The scientist's research encompasses several key topics such as Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies, Groundwater Flow and Contamination Studies, Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics, Cryospheric Studies and Observations, Soil and Unsaturated Flow, Hydrological Forecasting Using Artificial Intelligence, and Climate Change and Permafrost.

Their recent scholarly contributions include papers such as:

  • Machine learning assisted hybrid models can improve streamflow simulation in diverse catchments across the conterminous US, 2020, Environmental Research Letters
  • Streamflow simulation in data-scarce basins using Bayesian and physics-informed machine learning models, 2021, Journal of Hydrometeorology
  • Permafrost Promotes Shallow Groundwater Flow and Warmer Headwater Streams, 2020, Water Resources Research
  • Sequential Imputation of Missing Spatio-Temporal Precipitation Data Using Random Forests, 2020, Frontiers in Water
  • Permafrost thermal conditions are sensitive to shifts in snow timing, 2020, Environmental Research Letters

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Painter include Ethan T. Coon, Saubhagya Singh Rathore, Ahmad Jan, Dan Lu, and Xingyuan Chen.

Their work has been regularly published in specific venues known for environmental and hydrological research, including:

  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)
  • Water Resources Research
  • Environmental Research Letters
  • Frontiers in Water
  • Journal of Hydrology

Best Publications

  • dfnWorks: A discrete fracture network framework for modeling subsurface flow and transport

    Jeffrey D. Hyman;Satish Karra;Nataliia Makedonska;Carl W. Gable

  • Machine learning assisted hybrid models can improve streamflow simulation in diverse catchments across the conterminous US

    Goutam Konapala;Shih-Chieh Kao;Scott L Painter;Dan Lu

  • Conforming Delaunay Triangulation of Stochastically Generated Three Dimensional Discrete Fracture Networks: A Feature Rejection Algorithm for Meshing Strategy

    Jeffrey D. Hyman;Carl W. Gable;Scott L. Painter;Nataliia Makedonska

  • Stochastic simulation of radionuclide migration in discretely fractured rock near the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory

    Vladimir Cvetkovic;S. Painter;N. Outters;J. O. Selroos

  • Evidence for Non-Gaussian Scaling Behavior in Heterogeneous Sedimentary Formations

    Scott Painter

  • Integrated surface/subsurface permafrost thermal hydrology: Model formulation and proof‐of‐concept simulations

    Scott L. Painter;Ethan T. Coon;Adam L. Atchley;Markus Berndt

  • Three-phase numerical model of water migration in partially frozen geological media: model formulation, validation, and applications

    Scott L. Painter;Scott L. Painter

  • Upscaling discrete fracture network simulations: An alternative to continuum transport models

    S. Painter;Vladimir Cvetkovic

  • Modeling the role of preferential snow accumulation in through talik development and hillslope groundwater flow in a transitional permafrost landscape

    Elchin E Jafarov;Ethan T Coon;Dylan R Harp;Cathy J Wilson

  • Constitutive Model for Unfrozen Water Content in Subfreezing Unsaturated Soils

    Scott L. Painter;Satish Karra

  • Non-isothermal, three-phase simulations of near-surface flows in a model permafrost system under seasonal variability and climate change

    Andrew Frampton;Scott Painter;Steve W. Lyon;Georgia Destouni

  • Effect of advective flow in fractures and matrix diffusion on natural gas production

    Satish Karra;Nataliia Makedonska;Hari S. Viswanathan;Scott L. Painter;Scott L. Painter

  • Permafrost degradation and subsurface-flow changes caused by surface warming trends

    Andrew Frampton;Scott L. Painter;Georgia Destouni

  • Evaluating the effect of internal aperture variability on transport in kilometer scale discrete fracture networks

    Nataliia Makedonska;Jeffrey D. Hyman;Satish Karra;Scott L. Painter

  • Particle tracking approach for transport in three-dimensional discrete fracture networks

    Nataliia Makedonska;Scott L. Painter;Scott L. Painter;Quan M. Bui;Quan M. Bui;Carl W. Gable

  • Thermal effects of groundwater flow through subarctic fens: A case study based on field observations and numerical modeling

    Ylva Sjöberg;Ethan Coon;A. Britta K. Sannel;Romain Pannetier

  • A constrained robust least squares approach for contaminant release history identification

    Alexander Y. Sun;Scott L. Painter;Gordon W. Wittmeyer

  • Time domain particle tracking methods for simulating transport with retention and first-order transformation

    Scott Painter;Vladimir Cvetkovic;James Mancillas;Osvaldo Pensado

  • Conceptualization and Simulation of the Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio Region, Texas

    Richard J. Lindgren;A.R. Dutton;S.D. Hovorka;S.R.H. Worthington

  • Influence of injection mode on transport properties in kilometer-scale three-dimensional discrete fracture networks

    Jeffrey Hyman;Scott L Painter;Scott L Painter;Hari Viswanathan;Nataliia Makedonska

  • Fractional Lévy motion as a model for spatial variability in sedimentary rock

    Scott Painter;Lincoln Paterson

  • Conceptualization and simulation of the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio region, Texas

    K. J. Lindgren;A. R. Dutton;Susan D Hovorka;S. R.H. Worthington

Frequent Co-Authors

Peter E. Thornton
Peter E. Thornton Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Cathy J. Wilson
Cathy J. Wilson Los Alamos National Laboratory
Vladimir Cvetkovic
Vladimir Cvetkovic Royal Institute of Technology
Carl W. Gable
Carl W. Gable Los Alamos National Laboratory
Xiaofeng Xu
Xiaofeng Xu San Diego State University
Hari S. Viswanathan
Hari S. Viswanathan Los Alamos National Laboratory
Jeffrey D. Hyman
Jeffrey D. Hyman Los Alamos National Laboratory
Vladimir E. Romanovsky
Vladimir E. Romanovsky University of Alaska Fairbanks
Georgia Destouni
Georgia Destouni Stockholm University
Stan D. Wullschleger
Stan D. Wullschleger Oak Ridge National Laboratory

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 those interested in expanding their expertise beyond Environmental Sciences, pursuing an online bachelors in sociology can provide valuable insights into human-environment interactions and social dynamics. This knowledge is crucial for addressing complex environmental challenges in diverse communities.

Educators and professionals aiming to influence policy or lead academic initiatives may find it beneficial to explore online edd programs no dissertation. These programs offer advanced leadership training with more flexible requirements, enabling quicker transitions to impact roles in education or environmental advocacy.

Many students begin with a foundational education specialist degree before advancing their credentials. The availability of top-tier online eds to edd programs simplifies this journey, supporting career growth while maintaining professional responsibilities.

For professionals aiming to deepen their practice in social work related to environmental justice or community health, fully funded dsw programs offer an excellent pathway. These programs often provide financial support, making advanced education more accessible for those committed to social and environmental well-being.

Best Scientists Citing Scott L. Painter

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles