The most cited authors and papers in tobacco control.

I n this paper, we present the first attempt at determining which authors of research and commentary of direct relevance to tobacco control have the most cited publications in this field. We examine this from 1980 to 2004 and also for the past decade (1994–2004) in an effort to distinguish the 100 overall most cited authors for these periods. We have also provided a list of the 50 highest citation classics in tobacco control. Citations are the most common way of measuring the impact in the scientific community of an article, and cumulatively, of a researcher. However, there can be important differences between evaluating impact and the quality of a paper. The quality of a paper is essentially characterised by the notion of possible value and this cannot be easily measured in an objective and quantitative way. Smith has suggested a range of ways in which scientific output might otherwise be evaluated, but all of these outcomes can be less easily measured than by calculating citations. While use of databases for citation analysis have been widely criticised, they do offer the easiest approach for assembling ‘‘ball park’’ data even when taking into consideration that the databases do not distinguish between positive and negative credits. Authors generally cite exemplary or important articles. While controversial badly flawed articles can also be highly cited in critical articles referring to them, it seldom happens that an author will repeatedly produce such highly cited flawed articles. The field of tobacco control is very broad and includes basic science on toxicology, pharmacology, and genetics; clinical research reporting on the impact of tobacco use on individuals’ health; epidemiological research on large populations; studies of tobacco use; and matters relevant to policies and programmes designed to reduce tobacco use and the harm it causes. There is a huge body of epidemiological research, which examines multiple risk factors for disease, where tobacco use is only one variable examined. Such research can be vital to the evidence base that underlies the case for tobacco control and the content of public awareness campaigns. As will be seen, many authors of such studies have been ranked highly and dominate the lists. While some may question their inclusion arguing that multiple risk factor epidemiology is not ‘‘true’’ tobacco control research, we reject that argument on both substantive and practical grounds. Culling such articles manually would have taken hundreds of hours, generated understandable controversy, and resulted in many highly influential epidemiological studies being capriciously discarded for the dubious purpose of elevating some authors doing more work precisely focused around tobacco ‘‘control’’.