World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
51
Citations
11519
World Ranking
2563
National Ranking
1250

Scott Y. H. Kim 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 Scott Y. H. Kim 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: 209 publications — 67th percentile

67% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Scott Y. H. Kim 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 Scott Y. H. Kim 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: 51 D-Index — 68th percentile

68% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Scott Y. H. Kim is affiliated with the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields, focusing primarily on Medicine, Psychology, and Health Professions. Within these fields, their work addresses subfields such as Clinical Psychology, General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Economics and Econometrics, and Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health.

Their academic contributions emphasize themes related to Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints, Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues, Ethics in Medical Practice, Health Systems, Economic Evaluations and Quality of Life, Ethics in Clinical Research, Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health, as well as Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare.

Scott Y. H. Kim has published extensively in various journals, with frequent publication venues including:

  • The American Journal of Bioethics
  • Journal of Medical Ethics
  • Clinical Trials
  • Psychological Medicine
  • American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Their recent notable papers include:

  • "Should euthanasia and assisted suicide for psychiatric disorders be permitted? A systematic review of reasons," 2020, Psychological Medicine
  • "Should age matter in COVID-19 triage? A deliberative study," 2021, Journal of Medical Ethics
  • "Processes of consent in research for adults with impaired mental capacity nearing the end of life: systematic review and transparent expert consultation (MORECare_Capacity statement)," 2020, BMC Medicine
  • "Ethics in the time of COVID," 2020, Neurology
  • "Psychiatric euthanasia, suicide and the role of gender," 2021, The British Journal of Psychiatry

Frequent collaborators in their research include:

  • Alex Ruck Keene
  • Gareth Owen
  • Marie Nicolini
  • Noah Berens
  • James Flory

Best Publications

  • Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death.

    Maria J. Silveira;Scott Y.H. Kim;Kenneth M. Langa

  • Activating ESR1 mutations in hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancer

    Dan R. Robinson;Yi Mi Wu;Pankaj Vats;Fengyun Su

  • Personalized Oncology Through Integrative High-Throughput Sequencing: A Pilot Study

    Sameek Roychowdhury;Matthew K. Iyer;Dan R. Robinson;Robert J. Lonigro

  • Trends in the prevalence and mortality of cognitive impairment in the United States: Is there evidence of a compression of cognitive morbidity?

    Kenneth M. Langa;Kenneth M. Langa;Eric B. Larson;Jason H. Karlawish;David M. Cutler

  • Current state of research on decision-making competence of cognitively impaired elderly persons.

    Scott Y.H. Kim;Jason H.T. Karlawish;Eric D. Caine

  • Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions

    Christine Grady;Lisa Eckstein;Ben Berkman;Dan Brock

  • Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer's disease in providing informed consent for participation in research.

    Scott Y. H. Kim;Eric D. Caine;Glenn W. Currier;Adrian Leibovici

  • Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide of Patients With Psychiatric Disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014

    Scott Y. H. Kim;Raymond G. De Vries;Raymond G. De Vries;John R. Peteet

  • The ability of persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) to make a decision about taking an AD treatment.

    J.H.T. Karlawish;D. J. Casarett;B. D. James;S. X. Xie

  • Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials — The Integrated Consent Model

    Scott Y H Kim;Franklin G Miller

  • Utility and Limits of the Mini Mental State Examination in Evaluating Consent Capacity in Alzheimer's Disease

    Scott Y. H. Kim;Eric D. Caine

  • Reframing Consent for Clinical Research: A Function-Based Approach

    Neal W Dickert;Nir Eyal;Sara F Goldkind;Christine Grady

  • Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: A Case Study of Public Deliberation on the Ethics of Surrogate Consent for Research

    Raymond De Vries;Aimee Stanczyk;Ian F. Wall;Rebecca Uhlmann

  • Decision-making capacity for research participation among individuals in the CATIE schizophrenia trial.

    Scott Stroup;Paul Appelbaum;Marvin Swartz;Mukesh Patel

  • Impaired Decision-Making Ability in Subjects With Alzheimer's Disease and Willingness to Participate in Research

    Scott Y.H. Kim;Christopher Cox;Eric D. Caine

  • Proxy and Surrogate Consent in Geriatric Neuropsychiatric Research: Update and Recommendations

    Scott Y.H. Kim;Paul S. Appelbaum;Dilip V. Jeste;Jason T. Olin

  • What do people at risk for Alzheimer disease think about surrogate consent for research

    Scott Y.H. Kim;Hyungjin Myra Kim;Colleen McCallum;Pierre N. Tariot

  • Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research

    Scott Y. H. Kim

  • Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies.

    Scott Y. H. Kim;Ian F. Wall;Aimee Stanczyk;Raymond De Vries

  • Surrogate consent for dementia research A national survey of older Americans

    S.Y.H. Kim;H. M. Kim;K. M. Langa;J. H.T. Karlawish

  • Measuring how people view biomedical research: Reliability and validity analysis of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire

    Jonathan D. Rubright;Mark S. Cary;Jason H. Karlawish;Scott Y. H. Kim

  • Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications

    David Gibbes Miller;Rebecca Dresser;Rebecca Dresser;Scott Y H Kim

Frequent Co-Authors

Raymond De Vries
Raymond De Vries University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Karl Kieburtz
Karl Kieburtz University of Rochester Medical Center
Paul S. Appelbaum
Paul S. Appelbaum Columbia University
J. Scott Roberts
J. Scott Roberts University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
David S. Knopman
David S. Knopman Mayo Clinic
Kenneth M. Langa
Kenneth M. Langa University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Eric D. Caine
Eric D. Caine University of Rochester Medical Center
Eric M. Reiman
Eric M. Reiman Arizona State University
Daniel C. Marson
Daniel C. Marson University of Alabama at Birmingham
Pierre N. Tariot
Pierre N. Tariot University of Rochester

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 online opens up diverse educational and career opportunities. Today, flexible study options allow learners to tailor their experiences, whether seeking a full degree or enhancing current expertise.

Many students opt for psychology masters programs, which offer insights into human behavior and support career growth in mental health, counseling, or research. For those interested in education, accelerated doctoral programs in education online provide a fast-tracked route to advanced credentials for leadership or administrative roles.

Shorter program options are increasingly popular. 1 year graduate programs let students quickly build advanced skills and boost employability. Likewise, accelerated programs at the bachelor’s level help learners complete degrees in less time, saving on tuition and preparing them for the workforce sooner.

Each path offers flexible online learning, allowing you to balance study and other commitments while opening doors to a variety of dynamic fields in social sciences and humanities.

Best Scientists Citing Scott Y. H. Kim

Trending Scientists