World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Earth Science 37 6765 6264 74 68 130 6195

Hugh G. Smith publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Hugh G. Smith between 2008 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Hugh G. Smith published across 18 years, from 2008 to 2025, averaging 8.2 papers a year. Output peaked at 13 publications in 2013. 10 of the 147 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2008 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 13. Peak 13 publications in 2013. 2008: 5 publications 2009: 4 publications 2010: 12 publications 2011: 9 publications 2012: 8 publications 2013: 13 publications 2014: 10 publications 2015: 9 publications 2016: 13 publications 2017: 11 publications 2018: 11 publications 2019: 7 publications 2020: 8 publications 2021: 6 publications 2022: 7 publications 2023: 4 publications 2024: 6 publications 2025: 4 publications
2008 2025

147 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Hugh G. Smith: publications per year, 2008 to 2025
Year Publications
2008 5
2009 4
2010 12
2011 9
2012 8
2013 13
2014 10
2015 9
2016 13
2017 11
2018 11
2019 7
2020 8
2021 6
2022 7
2023 4
2024 6
2025 4
Total 147
Download as CSV

Hugh G. Smith publication distribution in Earth Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Earth Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Hugh G. Smith sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400 500
Bar chart with 58 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 38–47 to 603+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 557. Most scientists, 557, have 128–137 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 603 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 128–137 publications, is where this scientist sits. 38–47 publications: 5 scientists 48–57 publications: 33 scientists 58–67 publications: 94 scientists 68–77 publications: 161 scientists 78–87 publications: 278 scientists 88–97 publications: 376 scientists 98–107 publications: 404 scientists 108–117 publications: 484 scientists 118–127 publications: 540 scientists 128–137 publications: 557 scientists 138–147 publications: 491 scientists 148–157 publications: 495 scientists 158–167 publications: 458 scientists 168–177 publications: 490 scientists 178–187 publications: 414 scientists 188–197 publications: 401 scientists 198–207 publications: 333 scientists 208–217 publications: 292 scientists 218–227 publications: 290 scientists 228–237 publications: 262 scientists 238–247 publications: 243 scientists 248–257 publications: 208 scientists 258–267 publications: 185 scientists 268–277 publications: 147 scientists 278–287 publications: 128 scientists 288–297 publications: 119 scientists 298–307 publications: 120 scientists 308–317 publications: 107 scientists 318–327 publications: 93 scientists 328–337 publications: 87 scientists 338–347 publications: 64 scientists 348–357 publications: 87 scientists 358–367 publications: 60 scientists 368–377 publications: 60 scientists 378–387 publications: 34 scientists 388–397 publications: 50 scientists 398–407 publications: 44 scientists 408–417 publications: 31 scientists 418–427 publications: 39 scientists 428–437 publications: 27 scientists 438–447 publications: 36 scientists 448–457 publications: 27 scientists 458–467 publications: 29 scientists 468–477 publications: 30 scientists 478–487 publications: 19 scientists 488–497 publications: 15 scientists 498–507 publications: 18 scientists 508–517 publications: 19 scientists 518–527 publications: 16 scientists 528–537 publications: 10 scientists 538–547 publications: 11 scientists 548–557 publications: 14 scientists 558–567 publications: 11 scientists 568–577 publications: 7 scientists 578–587 publications: 14 scientists 588–597 publications: 5 scientists 598–602 publications: 4 scientists 603+ publications: 100 scientists
38–47 publications 603+

This scientist: 130 publications — 28th percentile

28% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 603 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Earth Science scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 9,176 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
38–47 5
48–57 33
58–67 94
68–77 161
78–87 278
88–97 376
98–107 404
108–117 484
118–127 540
128–137 557 130
138–147 491
148–157 495
158–167 458
168–177 490
178–187 414
188–197 401
198–207 333
208–217 292
218–227 290
228–237 262
238–247 243
248–257 208
258–267 185
268–277 147
278–287 128
288–297 119
298–307 120
308–317 107
318–327 93
328–337 87
338–347 64
348–357 87
358–367 60
368–377 60
378–387 34
388–397 50
398–407 44
408–417 31
418–427 39
428–437 27
438–447 36
448–457 27
458–467 29
468–477 30
478–487 19
488–497 15
498–507 18
508–517 19
518–527 16
528–537 10
538–547 11
548–557 14
558–567 11
568–577 7
578–587 14
588–597 5
598–602 4
603+ 100
Download as CSV

Hugh G. Smith D-index placement in Earth Science in 2026

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

No. of scientists
100 200 300
Bar chart with 77 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 106+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 389. Most scientists, 389, have 36 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 106 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 37 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30 D-Index: 144 scientists 31 D-Index: 215 scientists 32 D-Index: 278 scientists 33 D-Index: 379 scientists 34 D-Index: 366 scientists 35 D-Index: 372 scientists 36 D-Index: 389 scientists 37 D-Index: 366 scientists 38 D-Index: 344 scientists 39 D-Index: 349 scientists 40 D-Index: 296 scientists 41 D-Index: 289 scientists 42 D-Index: 277 scientists 43 D-Index: 279 scientists 44 D-Index: 248 scientists 45 D-Index: 257 scientists 46 D-Index: 212 scientists 47 D-Index: 202 scientists 48 D-Index: 207 scientists 49 D-Index: 204 scientists 50 D-Index: 183 scientists 51 D-Index: 178 scientists 52 D-Index: 182 scientists 53 D-Index: 178 scientists 54 D-Index: 163 scientists 55 D-Index: 117 scientists 56 D-Index: 163 scientists 57 D-Index: 120 scientists 58 D-Index: 113 scientists 59 D-Index: 136 scientists 60 D-Index: 135 scientists 61 D-Index: 96 scientists 62 D-Index: 103 scientists 63 D-Index: 83 scientists 64 D-Index: 103 scientists 65 D-Index: 83 scientists 66 D-Index: 89 scientists 67 D-Index: 92 scientists 68 D-Index: 89 scientists 69 D-Index: 78 scientists 70 D-Index: 75 scientists 71 D-Index: 53 scientists 72 D-Index: 62 scientists 73 D-Index: 54 scientists 74 D-Index: 35 scientists 75 D-Index: 52 scientists 76 D-Index: 50 scientists 77 D-Index: 32 scientists 78 D-Index: 37 scientists 79 D-Index: 20 scientists 80 D-Index: 33 scientists 81 D-Index: 36 scientists 82 D-Index: 34 scientists 83 D-Index: 34 scientists 84 D-Index: 24 scientists 85 D-Index: 19 scientists 86 D-Index: 18 scientists 87 D-Index: 26 scientists 88 D-Index: 30 scientists 89 D-Index: 17 scientists 90 D-Index: 21 scientists 91 D-Index: 19 scientists 92 D-Index: 15 scientists 93 D-Index: 14 scientists 94 D-Index: 20 scientists 95 D-Index: 9 scientists 96 D-Index: 10 scientists 97 D-Index: 15 scientists 98 D-Index: 13 scientists 99 D-Index: 3 scientists 100 D-Index: 13 scientists 101 D-Index: 3 scientists 102 D-Index: 9 scientists 103 D-Index: 4 scientists 104 D-Index: 6 scientists 105 D-Index: 6 scientists 106+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 106+

This scientist: 37 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 106 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Earth Science scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 9,176 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 144
31 215
32 278
33 379
34 366
35 372
36 389
37 366 37
38 344
39 349
40 296
41 289
42 277
43 279
44 248
45 257
46 212
47 202
48 207
49 204
50 183
51 178
52 182
53 178
54 163
55 117
56 163
57 120
58 113
59 136
60 135
61 96
62 103
63 83
64 103
65 83
66 89
67 92
68 89
69 78
70 75
71 53
72 62
73 54
74 35
75 52
76 50
77 32
78 37
79 20
80 33
81 36
82 34
83 34
84 24
85 19
86 18
87 26
88 30
89 17
90 21
91 19
92 15
93 14
94 20
95 9
96 10
97 15
98 13
99 3
100 13
101 3
102 9
103 4
104 6
105 6
106+ 98
Download as CSV

Research.com Recognitions

  • 1968 - Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Overview

Hugh G. Smith is affiliated with Landcare Research in New Zealand. Their research primarily spans environmental science and engineering, with a significant focus on subfields such as global and planetary change, management, monitoring, policy and law, ecology, soil science, and mechanical engineering.

The scientist's work covers several main topics, including:

  • Landslides and related hazards
  • Hydrology and sediment transport processes
  • Soil erosion and sediment transport
  • Tree root and stability studies
  • Radioactive contamination and transfer
  • Nuclear and radioactivity studies
  • Fire effects on ecosystems

Hugh G. Smith has contributed to numerous publications, with frequent appearances in the following venues:

  • Geomorphology
  • Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
  • Ecological Engineering
  • Journal of Environmental Management
  • The Science of The Total Environment

Recent papers authored by Hugh G. Smith include:

  • Comparing methods of landslide data acquisition and susceptibility modelling: Examples from New Zealand, 2021, Geomorphology
  • The influence of spatial patterns in rainfall on shallow landslides, 2023, Geomorphology

Other relevant recent works in related fields where Smith appears as a co-author involve research on radionuclides, vegetation's role in landslides, and slope stability studies:

  • Radionuclides from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in terrestrial systems, 2020, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
  • Shallow landslides and vegetation at the catchment scale: A perspective, 2021, Ecological Engineering
  • Quantifying the influence of individual trees on slope stability at landscape scale, 2021, Journal of Environmental Management

Frequent coauthors who collaborate with Hugh G. Smith include Andrew Neverman, Raphael Spiekermann, Chris Phillips, Yuichi Onda, and Keisuke Taniguchi.

In recognition of scholarly contributions, Hugh G. Smith was awarded the title of Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1968.

Best Publications

  • Twenty-three unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH)–a community perspective

    Günter Blöschl;Marc F.P. Bierkens;Antonio Chambel;Christophe Cudennec

  • Wildfire effects on water quality in forest catchments: A review with implications for water supply

    Hugh G. Smith;Gary J. Sheridan;Patrick N.J. Lane;Petter Nyman

  • Sediment fingerprinting in agricultural catchments: A critical re-examination of source discrimination and data corrections

    Hugh G. Smith;William H. Blake

  • Evidence of debris flow occurrence after wildfire in upland catchments of south-east Australia

    Petter Nyman;Gary J. Sheridan;Hugh G. Smith;Patrick N.J. Lane

  • The challenges and opportunities of addressing particle size effects in sediment source fingerprinting: a review.

    J. Patrick Laceby;Olivier Evrard;Hugh G. Smith;Will H. Blake

  • Fingerprinting and tracing the sources of soils and sediments: Earth and ocean science, geoarchaeological, forensic, and human health applications

    P.N. Owens;W.H. Blake;L. Gaspar;L. Gaspar;D. Gateuille;D. Gateuille

  • Radionuclides from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in terrestrial systems

    Yuichi Onda;Keisuke Taniguchi;Kazuya Yoshimura;Hiroaki Kato

  • Interpreting sediment delivery processes using suspended sediment‐discharge hysteresis patterns from nested upland catchments, south‐eastern Australia

    Hugh G. Smith;Hugh G. Smith;Deirdre Dragovich

  • Initial flux of sediment-associated radiocesium to the ocean from the largest river impacted by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

    Yosuke Yamashiki;Yuichi Onda;Hugh G. Smith;William H. Blake

  • Transport and Redistribution of Radiocesium in Fukushima Fallout through Rivers

    Keisuke Taniguchi;Yuichi Onda;Hugh G. Smith;William Blake

  • Surface runoff and erosion after prescribed burning and the effect of different fire regimes in forests and shrublands: a review

    J. G. Cawson;J. G. Cawson;G. J. Sheridan;G. J. Sheridan;H. G. Smith;H. G. Smith;P. N. J. Lane;P. N. J. Lane

  • Effects of fire severity and burn patchiness on hillslope-scale surface runoff, erosion and hydrologic connectivity in a prescribed burn

    J.G. Cawson;J.G. Cawson;G.J. Sheridan;G.J. Sheridan;H.G. Smith;P.N.J. Lane;P.N.J. Lane

  • Predicting sediment delivery from debris flows after wildfire

    Petter Nyman;Petter Nyman;Hugh G. Smith;Christopher B. Sherwin;Christopher B. Sherwin;Christoph Langhans

  • Comparing catchment sediment fingerprinting procedures using an auto-evaluation approach with virtual sample mixtures

    Leticia Palazón;Borja Latorre;Leticia Gaspar;William H. Blake

  • Modeling the effects of surface storage, macropore flow and water repellency on infiltration after wildfire

    Petter Nyman;Petter Nyman;Gary J. Sheridan;Gary J. Sheridan;Hugh G. Smith;Patrick N.J. Lane;Patrick N.J. Lane

  • Changes to sediment sources following wildfire in a forested upland catchment, southeastern Australia

    Hugh G. Smith;Gary J. Sheridan;Patrick N. J. Lane;Philip J. Noske

  • Assumptions and challenges in the use of fallout beryllium-7 as a soil and sediment tracer in river basins

    A. Taylor;W.H. Blake;H.G. Smith;L. Mabit

  • Testing the sensitivity of a multivariate mixing model using geochemical fingerprints with artificial mixtures

    Leticia Gaspar;William H. Blake;Hugh G. Smith;Ivan Lizaga

  • Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures

    Mark Riley;Heather Sangster;Hugh Smith;Richard C. Chiverrell

  • Quantifying sources of fine sediment supplied to post-fire debris flows using fallout radionuclide tracers

    Hugh G. Smith;Hugh G. Smith;Gary J. Sheridan;Petter Nyman;David P. Child

  • A deconvolutional Bayesian mixing model approach for river basin sediment source apportionment.

    William H. Blake;Pascal Boeckx;Brian C. Stock;Hugh G. Smith

  • Soil erosion in East Africa: an interdisciplinary approach to realising pastoral land management change

    William H Blake;Anna Rabinovich;Maarten Wynants;Claire Kelly

Frequent Co-Authors

Gary J. Sheridan
Gary J. Sheridan University of Melbourne
Patrick N.J. Lane
Patrick N.J. Lane University of Melbourne
William H. Blake
William H. Blake Plymouth University
Yuichi Onda
Yuichi Onda University of Tsukuba
Richard C. Chiverrell
Richard C. Chiverrell University of Liverpool
Ana Navas
Ana Navas Spanish National Research Council
Pascal Boeckx
Pascal Boeckx Ghent University
John Boyle
John Boyle University of Liverpool
Philip N. Owens
Philip N. Owens University of Northern British Columbia
Stefan H. Doerr
Stefan H. Doerr Swansea University

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

Studying Earth Science in the USA opens doors to several interdisciplinary career routes. Many students complement their technical knowledge with creative skills, making online MFA programs a unique option for those interested in environmental storytelling or scientific visualization.

For those looking to manage teams or projects within scientific organizations, pursuing a masters degree in human resource management online can enhance leadership capabilities and increase career flexibility.

Earth Science degrees also appeal to learners of all ages. Seniors seeking new challenges or career changes can explore some of the best college degrees for seniors that align well with continuing education goals in this field.

Additionally, professionals interested in managing scientific information and research materials might consider ALA accredited MLIS programs, which prepare graduates for roles in libraries, research centers, and data curation.

Best Scientists Citing Hugh G. Smith

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles