World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
97
Citations
58155
World Ranking
9074
National Ranking
4680

Craig R. Smith publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Craig R. Smith sits on this spectrum.

101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 611 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 442 publications — 47th percentile

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

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

Craig R. Smith D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Craig R. Smith sits on this spectrum.

70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 400 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 97 D-Index — 55th percentile

55% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

Overview

Craig R. Smith is affiliated with Columbia University in the United States. Their research expertise spans Earth and Planetary Sciences and Environmental Science, with a particular focus on Oceanography and Ecology as key subfields.

Their work extensively covers marine biological and ecological research, with notable contributions in marine and coastal plant biology, microbial community ecology and physiology, coral and marine ecosystems studies, isotope analysis in ecology, marine and fisheries research, and marine animal studies.

Frequent coauthors of Craig R. Smith include:

  • Jeffrey C. Drazen
  • Diva J. Amon
  • Adrian G. Glover
  • Thomas G. Dahlgren
  • Daniel O. B. Jones

Craig R. Smith has published in a range of scientific venues, with multiple contributions to:

  • Frontiers in Marine Science
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Trends in Ecology & Evolution
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

They have also authored books published by Edinburgh University Press and Cambridge University Press, including titles such as The Scottish Enlightenment (2021) and Interpreting Adam Smith (2023).

A selection of recent papers by Craig R. Smith includes:

  • "Deep-Sea Misconceptions Cause Underestimation of Seabed-Mining Impacts," 2020, Trends in Ecology & Evolution
  • "Ecological variables for developing a global deep-ocean monitoring and conservation strategy," 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution
  • "Midwater ecosystems must be considered when evaluating environmental risks of deep-sea mining," 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • "Assessment of scientific gaps related to the effective environmental management of deep-seabed mining," 2022, Marine Policy
  • "Antarctic ecosystems in transition - life between stresses and opportunities," 2020, Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

Best Publications

  • Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients

    Craig R. Smith;Martin B. Leon;Michael J. Mack;D. Craig Miller

  • Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

    Martin B Leon;Craig R. Smith;Michael J. Mack;Michael J. Mack;Rajendra Makkar

  • Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients

    Michael J. Mack;Martin B. Leon;Vinod H. Thourani;Raj Makkar

  • 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

    Stephan D. Fihn;Julius M. Gardin;Jonathan Abrams;Kathleen Berra

  • Two-Year Outcomes after Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement

    Susheel K. Kodali;Mathew R. Williams;Craig R. Smith;Lars G. Svensson

  • Strategies for Multivessel Revascularization in Patients with Diabetes

    Michael E. Farkouh;Michael Domanski;Lynn A. Sleeper;Flora S. Siami

  • 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial

    Michael J Mack;Martin B Leon;Craig R Smith;D Craig Miller

  • Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement for Inoperable Severe Aortic Stenosis

    Raj R Makkar;Gregory P Fontana;Hasan Jilaihawi;Samir Kapadia

  • 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial

    Samir R Kapadia;Martin B Leon;Raj R Makkar;E Murat Tuzcu

  • Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients

    Craig R. Smith;Martin B. Leon;Michael J. Mack;D. Craig Miller

  • Drug-Eluting Stents vs Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting in Multivessel Coronary Disease

    Edward L Hannan;Chuntao Wu;Gary Walford;Alfred T Culliford

  • Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) Trial and Registry

    Tamim M. Nazif;José M. Dizon;Rebecca T. Hahn;Ke Xu

  • Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement.

    Raj R. Makkar;Vinod H. Thourani;Michael J. Mack;Susheel K. Kodali

  • The impact of frailty status on survival after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience.

    Philip Green;Abigail E. Woglom;Philippe Genereux;Benoit Daneault

  • Staging classification of aortic stenosis based on the extent of cardiac damage.

    Philippe Généreux;Philippe Généreux;Philippe Pibarot;Björn Redfors;Michael J Mack

  • Management of vasodilatory shock after cardiac surgery: Identification of predisposing factors and use of a novel pressor agent

    Michael Argenziano;Jonathan M. Chen;Asim F. Choudhri;Suzanne Cullinane

  • Myocardial revascularization through the endocardial surface using a laser

    Valluvan Jeevanandam;Craig R. Smith

  • Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort--a analysis.

    Philippe Pibarot;Neil J. Weissman;William J. Stewart;Rebecca T. Hahn

  • Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

    Susheel K. Kodali;Mathew R. Williams;Craig R. Smith;Lars G. Svensson

  • 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Executive Summary

    Stephan D. Fihn;Julius M. Gardin;Jonathan Abrams;Kathleen Berra

Frequent Co-Authors

Eric A. Rose
Eric A. Rose Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Mehmet C. Oz
Mehmet C. Oz Columbia University
Robert E. Michler
Robert E. Michler Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Mathew R. Williams
Mathew R. Williams New York University
Yoshifumi Naka
Yoshifumi Naka Columbia University
Martin B. Leon
Martin B. Leon Columbia University Medical Center
Edward L. Hannan
Edward L. Hannan University at Albany, State University of New York
Vinod H. Thourani
Vinod H. Thourani Georgetown University
Susheel Kodali
Susheel Kodali Columbia University Medical Center
John G. Webb
John G. Webb University of British Columbia

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 a career in medicine doesn't always follow a traditional path. For those interested in the healthcare field, there are several flexible online degree options and alternative career pathways to consider.

If you already hold a bachelor’s degree in another field, but want to become a nurse, look into direct entry msn online programs. These accelerated courses let you earn a Master of Science in Nursing without repeating undergraduate classes.

Looking for a faster route? online adn programs provide an accessible path to begin working as a registered nurse, often in less time and with flexible admission requirements.

Beyond nursing, consider roles in healthcare administration. You can become certified through medical coding and billing classes online with financial aid. These programs suit those seeking vital positions in healthcare without direct patient care.

Lastly, some prospective nurses want to bypass standardized entrance exams. In that case, look into nursing schools that don't require teas test for a more flexible admissions process.

Best Scientists Citing Craig R. Smith

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles