World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Matthew C. Farrelly

Matthew C. Farrelly

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Social Sciences and Humanities 58 1678 1507 799 708 202 10645

Matthew C. Farrelly publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Matthew C. Farrelly between 1996 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Matthew C. Farrelly published across 30 years, from 1996 to 2025, averaging 7.1 papers a year. Output peaked at 18 publications in 2004. 6 of the 214 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1996 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 18. Peak 18 publications in 2004. 1996: 2 publications 1997: 1 publication 1998: 1 publication 1999: 4 publications 2000: 2 publications 2001: 7 publications 2002: 8 publications 2003: 17 publications 2004: 18 publications 2005: 10 publications 2006: 11 publications 2007: 14 publications 2008: 6 publications 2009: 8 publications 2010: 0 publications 2011: 11 publications 2012: 9 publications 2013: 6 publications 2014: 9 publications 2015: 8 publications 2016: 5 publications 2017: 11 publications 2018: 9 publications 2019: 11 publications 2020: 1 publication 2021: 8 publications 2022: 8 publications 2023: 3 publications 2024: 5 publications 2025: 1 publication
1996 2025

214 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Matthew C. Farrelly: publications per year, 1996 to 2025
Year Publications
1996 2
1997 1
1998 1
1999 4
2000 2
2001 7
2002 8
2003 17
2004 18
2005 10
2006 11
2007 14
2008 6
2009 8
2010 0
2011 11
2012 9
2013 6
2014 9
2015 8
2016 5
2017 11
2018 9
2019 11
2020 1
2021 8
2022 8
2023 3
2024 5
2025 1
Total 214
Download as CSV

Matthew C. Farrelly publications per year - data summary

  • Matthew C. Farrelly, a Social Sciences and Humanities scholar from RTI International, has 214 publications recorded across 30 years, from 1996 to 2025.
  • The oldest publication on record dates to 1996 and the most recent to 2025.
  • The most productive year is 2004, with 18 publications.
  • The least productive years with any output are 1997, 1998, 2020 and 2025, with 1 publication each.
  • 1 of the 30 years in the span carries no publications at all (2010).
  • The rate of publication averages 7.1 papers per year over the whole span, or 7.4 per year counting only the 29 years with at least one publication.
  • The last 5 years on the chart (2021-2025) hold 25 publications, 12% of the career total.
  • Split into equal eras - 1996-2005: 70 publications (7.0 per year); 2006-2015: 82 publications (8.2 per year); 2016-2025: 62 publications (6.2 per year).
  • Comparing the opening and closing eras, the overall trend of publication is broadly steady.

Matthew C. Farrelly 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 Matthew C. Farrelly sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400
Bar chart with 54 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 44–53 to 570+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 474. Most scientists, 474, have 114–123 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 194–203 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
44–53 publications 570+

This scientist: 202 publications — 65th percentile

65% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
44–53 28
54–63 61
64–73 161
74–83 225
84–93 301
94–103 390
104–113 406
114–123 474
124–133 453
134–143 434
144–153 407
154–163 411
164–173 391
174–183 313
184–193 319
194–203 304 202
204–213 285
214–223 246
224–233 213
234–243 170
244–253 167
254–263 162
264–273 138
274–283 138
284–293 113
294–303 106
304–313 95
314–323 101
324–333 81
334–343 69
344–353 56
354–363 36
364–373 42
374–383 41
384–393 44
394–403 27
404–413 30
414–423 20
424–433 29
434–443 29
444–453 25
454–463 19
464–473 21
474–483 11
484–493 17
494–503 7
504–513 6
514–523 12
524–533 10
534–543 7
544–553 6
554–563 12
564–569 8
570+ 100
Download as CSV

Matthew C. Farrelly publication distribution in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026 - data summary

  • The chart plots the publication count of all 7,777 Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026, grouped into 54 ranges running from 44–53 to 570+ publications.
  • Matthew C. Farrelly, a Social Sciences and Humanities scholar from RTI International, records 202 publications - the 65th percentile of the discipline.
  • 65% of ranked Social Sciences and Humanities scientists score the same or lower than Matthew C. Farrelly, and about 35% score higher.
  • The median of the discipline falls in the 164–173 publications range, and Matthew C. Farrelly ranks above the median.
  • The most crowded range is 114–123 publications, holding 474 scientists (6% of the field).
  • 57% of the field sits in the lowest quarter of the value range (up to 174–183 publications), so the distribution is heavily right-skewed and high scores are rare.
  • The final bar has no upper bound: it groups every scientist with 570 publications or more, 100 scientists in all (1% of the field).

Matthew C. Farrelly 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 Matthew C. Farrelly sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300
Bar chart with 71 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 100+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 313. Most scientists, 313, have 42 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 58 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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: 58 D-Index — 79th percentile

79% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 177
31 210
32 222
33 188
34 181
35 243
36 261
37 272
38 278
39 300
40 297
41 308
42 313
43 300
44 269
45 260
46 228
47 251
48 203
49 186
50 187
51 166
52 138
53 141
54 131
55 137
56 109
57 129
58 95 58
59 105
60 106
61 86
62 94
63 77
64 79
65 59
66 68
67 51
68 49
69 40
70 43
71 40
72 50
73 46
74 43
75 45
76 45
77 30
78 25
79 31
80 29
81 18
82 21
83 26
84 15
85 15
86 19
87 19
88 12
89 7
90 19
91 20
92 13
93 9
94 13
95 8
96 7
97 6
98 6
99 6
100+ 97
Download as CSV

Matthew C. Farrelly D-index placement in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026 - data summary

  • The chart plots the discipline H-index (D-index) of all 7,777 Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026, grouped into 71 ranges running from 30 to 100+ D-Index.
  • Matthew C. Farrelly, a Social Sciences and Humanities scholar from RTI International, records 58 D-Index - the 79th percentile of the discipline.
  • 79% of ranked Social Sciences and Humanities scientists score the same or lower than Matthew C. Farrelly, and about 21% score higher.
  • The median of the discipline falls in the 45 D-Index range, and Matthew C. Farrelly ranks above the median.
  • The most crowded range is 42 D-Index, holding 313 scientists (4% of the field).
  • 59% of the field sits in the lowest quarter of the value range (up to 47 D-Index), so the distribution is heavily right-skewed and high scores are rare.
  • The final bar has no upper bound: it groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more, 97 scientists in all (1% of the field).

Overview

Matthew C. Farrelly is affiliated with RTI International in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields, focusing primarily on medicine and psychology. Within these broader fields, their work covers subfields including physiology, applied psychology, sociology and political science, human-computer interaction, and social psychology.

Their main research topics encompass smoking behavior and cessation, behavioral health and interventions, virtual reality applications and impacts, media influence and health, simulation-based education in healthcare, sexuality, behavior, and technology, as well as cannabis and cannabinoid research.

Farrelly has contributed to academic publications across several frequent venues. These include:

  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research
  • Health Education & Behavior
  • Frontiers in Virtual Reality
  • Preventive Medicine Reports
  • Health Education Research

Some of the recent publications include:

  • Investigating the process of mine rescuers' safety training with immersive virtual reality: A structural equation modelling approach, 2020, Computers & Education
  • Cost-benefit analysis of virtual reality-based training for emergency rescue workers: a socio-technical systems approach, 2021, Virtual Reality
  • LGBT young adults' awareness of and receptivity to the This Free Life tobacco public education campaign, 2020, Tobacco Control
  • Final Evaluation Findings for This Free Life, a 3-Year, Multi-Market Tobacco Public Education Campaign for Gender and Sexual Minority Young Adults in the United States, 2021, Nicotine & Tobacco Research
  • Impact of Local Flavored Tobacco Sales Restrictions on Policy-Related Attitudes and Tobacco Product Access, 2021, Health Education & Behavior

Farrelly frequently collaborates with several researchers. Their notable coauthors include:

  • James Nonnemaker
  • Shiva Pedram
  • Stephen Palmisano
  • Pascal Perez
  • Jamie Guillory

Best Publications

  • Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Cheryl G. Healton;Kevin C. Davis;Peter Messeri

  • Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Kevin C. Davis;M. Lyndon Haviland;Peter Messeri

  • The impact of workplace smoking bans: results from a national survey

    Matthew C Farrelly;William N Evans;Andrew E S Sfekas

  • Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking

    William N Evans;Matthew C Farrelly;Edward Montgomery

  • The compensating behavior of smokers: taxes, tar, and nicotine.

    William N. Evans;Matthew C. Farrelly

  • Declines in Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction in New York State After Implementation of a Comprehensive Smoking Ban

    Harlan R. Juster;Brett R. Loomis;Theresa M. Hinman;Matthew C. Farrelly

  • Youth tobacco prevention mass media campaigns: past, present, and future directions

    Matthew Farrelly;Jeffrey Niederdeppe;Jared Yarsevich

  • Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law

    Matthew Farrelly;James Nonnemaker;R Chou;A Hyland

  • The Influence of the National truth® Campaign on Smoking Initiation

    Matthew C. Farrelly;James Nonnemaker;Kevin C. Davis;Altijani Hussin

  • The Impact of Tobacco Control Programs on Adult Smoking

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Terry F Pechacek;Kristin Y Thomas;David E. Nelson

  • Response by adults to increases in cigarette prices by sociodemographic characteristics

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Jeremy W. Bray;Terry Pechacek;Trevor Woollery

  • The impact of tobacco control program expenditures on aggregate cigarette sales: 1981–2000

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Terry F. Pechacek;Frank J. Chaloupka

  • State tobacco control spending and youth smoking.

    John A. Tauras;Frank J. Chaloupka;Matthew C. Farrelly;Gary A. Giovino

  • Recruiting Hard-to-Reach Populations for Survey Research: Using Facebook and Instagram Advertisements and In-Person Intercept in LGBT Bars and Nightclubs to Recruit LGBT Young Adults.

    Jamie Guillory;Kristine F Wiant;Matthew Farrelly;Leah Fiacco

  • A Randomized Trial of the Effect of E-cigarette TV Advertisements on Intentions to Use E-cigarettes

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Jennifer C. Duke;Erik C. Crankshaw;Matthew E. Eggers

  • Confirming “truth”: More Evidence of a Successful Tobacco Countermarketing Campaign in Florida

    Jeff Niederdeppe;Matthew C. Farrelly;M. Lyndon Haviland

  • The joint demand for cigarettes and marijuana: evidence from the National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse.

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Jeremy W. Bray;Gary A. Zarkin;Brett W. Wendling

  • Perceived Effectiveness of Cessation Advertisements: The Importance of Audience Reactions and Practical Implications for Media Campaign Planning

    Kevin C Davis;James Nonnemaker;Jennifer Duke;Matthew C Farrelly

  • Association Between The Real Cost Media Campaign and Smoking Initiation Among Youths - United States, 2014-2016.

    Matthew C Farrelly;Jennifer C Duke;James Nonnemaker;Anna J MacMonegle

  • Progression to Established Smoking Among US Youths

    Paul D. Mowery;Matthew C. Farrelly;M. Lyndon Haviland;Julia M. Gable

  • Sustaining ‘truth’: changes in youth tobacco attitudes and smoking intentions after 3 years of a national antismoking campaign

    Matthew C. Farrelly;Kevin C. Davis;Jennifer Duke;Peter Messeri

Frequent Co-Authors

James M. Nonnemaker
James M. Nonnemaker Research Triangle Park Foundation
Jeff Niederdeppe
Jeff Niederdeppe Cornell University
Frank J. Chaloupka
Frank J. Chaloupka University of Illinois at Chicago
Rosalie Liccardo Pacula
Rosalie Liccardo Pacula University of Southern California
Lloyd D. Johnston
Lloyd D. Johnston University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Patrick M. O'Malley
Patrick M. O'Malley University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
William N. Evans
William N. Evans University of Notre Dame
Andrew Hyland
Andrew Hyland Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Gary A. Zarkin
Gary A. Zarkin Research Triangle Park Foundation
Donna Vallone
Donna Vallone Johns Hopkins 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

Pursuing Social Sciences and Humanities in the USA opens doors to a diverse range of online degree options and career pathways. Many students are now choosing CACREP-accredited programs online for counseling, ensuring they meet industry standards and licensure requirements.

For those interested in supporting families and couples, an online master's degree in marriage and family therapy provides practical skills and specialized knowledge, with the flexibility to balance studies with life commitments.

Students drawn to understanding human behavior can explore psychology degrees online, which offer affordability and accessibility for future counselors, researchers, and professionals across various sectors.

Aiming for a career in social work? Consider enrolling in an online MSW program, designed to prepare graduates for clinical practice and advocacy roles in diverse communities.

Best Scientists Citing Matthew C. Farrelly

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles