World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Tyler J. VanderWeele

Tyler J. VanderWeele

Award Badge
Social Sciences and Humanities
USA
2026

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
117
Citations
61448
World Ranking
29
National Ranking
17

Tyler J. VanderWeele 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 Tyler J. VanderWeele 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: 488 publications — 98th percentile

98% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Tyler J. VanderWeele 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 Tyler J. VanderWeele 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: 117 D-Index — 100th percentile

100% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2026 - Research.com Social Sciences and Humanities in United States Leader Award
  • 2025 - Research.com Social Sciences and Humanities in United States Leader Award
  • 2017 - COPSS Presidents' Award For fundamental contributions to causal inference and the understanding of causal mechanisms; for profound advancement of epidemiologic theory and methods and the application of statistics throughout medical and social sciences; and for excellent service to the profession including exceptional contributions to teaching, mentoring, and bridging many academic disciplines with statistics
  • 2014 - Fellow of the American Statistical Association (ASA)

Overview

Tyler J. VanderWeele is affiliated with Harvard University in the United States. Their research spans multiple subfields within psychology and social sciences, with a particular focus on social psychology, health, general health professions, clinical psychology, and statistics and probability.

The primary areas of study include psychological well-being and life satisfaction, health disparities and outcomes, optimism, hope, and well-being, religion, spirituality, and psychology, advanced causal inference techniques, employment and welfare studies, and grief, bereavement, and mental health.

VanderWeele has published extensively, with numerous recent papers that highlight methodological rigor and application in epidemiology and psychology. Selected recent papers include:

  • "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization" (2021, JAMA)
  • "Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration" (2021, BMJ)
  • "A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies" (2021, JAMA)
  • "Mental Health During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review and Recommendations for Moving Forward" (2022, Perspectives on Psychological Science)
  • "Spirituality in Serious Illness and Health" (2022, JAMA)

Their frequent co-authors reflect a collaborative research approach across disciplines and include Byron R. Johnson, Ying Chen, Richard G. Cowden, R. Noah Padgett, and Eric S. Kim.

VanderWeele's work appears regularly in prominent scholarly venues such as Scientific Reports, International Journal of Wellbeing, Epidemiology, The Journal of Positive Psychology, and Social Science & Medicine.

Among the recognitions received, VanderWeele was awarded the COPSS Presidents' Award in 2017 for contributions to causal inference, epidemiologic theory, and statistical applications in medical and social sciences. Additionally, they were named a Fellow of the American Statistical Association in 2014.

Best Publications

  • Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value

    Tyler J. VanderWeele;Peng Ding

  • Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros.

    Linda Valeri;Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants

    Brandon L Pierce;Habibul Ahsan;Tyler J VanderWeele

  • Mediation Analysis: A Practitioner's Guide

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration

    Veronika W Skrivankova;Rebecca C Richmond;Benjamin A R Woolf;Neil M Davies;Neil M Davies

  • Principles of confounder selection.

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Recommendations for presenting analyses of effect modification and interaction

    Mirjam J Knol;Tyler J VanderWeele

  • On the promotion of human flourishing

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • A Tutorial on Interaction

    Tyler J. VanderWeele;Mirjam J. Knol

  • Using the E-Value to Assess the Potential Effect of Unmeasured Confounding in Observational Studies

    Sebastien Haneuse;Tyler J VanderWeele;David Arterburn;David Arterburn

  • Odds Ratios for Mediation Analysis for a Dichotomous Outcome

    Tyler J. VanderWeele;Stijn Vansteelandt

  • Estimating measures of interaction on an additive scale for preventive exposures.

    Mirjam J. Knol;Tyler J. VanderWeele;Rolf H. H. Groenwold;Olaf H. Klungel

  • Web Site and R Package for Computing E-values.

    Maya B. Mathur;Peng Ding;Corinne A. Riddell;Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • A unification of mediation and interaction: a 4-way decomposition.

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects.

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Effect of a housing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial.

    Laura S. Sadowski;Romina A. Kee;Tyler J. VanderWeele;David Buchanan

  • Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization

    Tyler J. VanderWeele;Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen;Marilyn Cornelis;Peter Kraft

  • On the causal interpretation of race in regressions adjusting for confounding and mediating variables

    Tyler J. VanderWeele;Whitney R. Robinson

  • Sensitivity Analysis Without Assumptions

    Peng Ding;Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Causal mediation analysis with survival data.

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Why Is Spiritual Care Infrequent at the End of Life? Spiritual Care Perceptions Among Patients, Nurses, and Physicians and the Role of Training

    Michael J. Balboni;Adam Sullivan;Adaugo Amobi;Andrea C. Phelps

  • Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

  • Effect of a Housing and Case Management Program on Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations Among Chronically Ill Homeless Adults

    S. Sadowski;Romina A. Kee;Tyler J. VanderWeele;David Buchanan

Frequent Co-Authors

James M. Robins
James M. Robins Harvard University
Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen
Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen University of Pennsylvania
Stijn Vansteelandt
Stijn Vansteelandt Ghent University
Eric S. Kim
Eric S. Kim University of British Columbia
Miguel A. Hernán
Miguel A. Hernán Harvard University
Laura D. Kubzansky
Laura D. Kubzansky Harvard University
Holly G. Prigerson
Holly G. Prigerson Cornell University
Sonia Hernandez-Diaz
Sonia Hernandez-Diaz Harvard University
Ichiro Kawachi
Ichiro Kawachi Harvard University
Peter Kraft
Peter Kraft Harvard University

External Links

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 numerous online study options and career pathways. Many students start by seeking the most affordable online psychology degree to enter fields like counseling, social work, and research. An affordable undergraduate degree can make a significant difference for students balancing cost and quality.

For graduate-level careers in social work, identifying the easiest msw programs to get into can streamline admission and allow students to pursue impactful, client-focused professions faster. These programs vary by admissions criteria, so research is essential.

Aspiring psychologists can advance further with doctoral qualifications through the best online psyd programs, which provide clinical skills and licensure pathways in a flexible format. Accreditation and supervised practicum are key factors to consider with these advanced degrees.

For those interested in family dynamics and therapy, marriage and family therapy online programs accredited can be completed quickly and often lead directly into licensure. These programs offer student-centered schedules and are ideal for working adults.

Best Scientists Citing Tyler J. VanderWeele

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles