World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
46
Citations
10943
World Ranking
6749
National Ranking
405

Anna L. Cox publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Anna L. Cox sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 251 publications — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

Anna L. Cox D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Anna L. Cox sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 46 D-Index — 53rd percentile

53% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

Anna L. Cox is a researcher affiliated with University College London in the United Kingdom. Their academic work spans multiple disciplines, predominantly focusing on Psychology, Social Sciences, and Computer Science, with notable attention to subfields such as Sociology and Political Science, Human-Computer Interaction, Applied Psychology, Information Systems and Management, and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology.

Their research covers several key topics including the impact of technology on adolescents, innovative human-technology interaction, digital mental health interventions, personal information management and user behavior, mental health research topics, usability and user interface design, as well as studies related to perfectionism, procrastination, and anxiety.

Anna L. Cox has contributed to numerous publications with recent papers including:

  • Ecological momentary interventions for mental health: A scoping review, 2021, PLoS ONE
  • Understanding users' perspectives on mobile apps for anxiety management, 2022, Frontiers in Digital Health
  • Evaluation of a novel intervention to reduce burnout in doctors-in-training using self-care and digital wellbeing strategies: a mixed-methods pilot, 2020, BMC Medical Education
  • What influences the selection of contextual cues when starting a new routine behaviour? An exploratory study, 2020, BMC Psychology
  • Designing gamified rewards to encourage repeated app selection: Effect of reward placement, 2021, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Frequent co-authors of Anna L. Cox include Duncan P. Brumby, Sandy J. J. Gould, Andreas Balaskas, Stephen M. Schueller, and Gavin Doherty, indicating collaborative work with experts in related fields.

Their research has appeared in respected venues such as:

  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Frontiers in Digital Health
  • Human-Computer Interaction

Best Publications

  • Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games

    Charlene Jennett;Anna L. Cox;Paul Cairns;Samira Dhoparee

  • Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups

    Anne Adams;Anna L. Cox

  • Research Methods for Human-Computer Interaction

    Paul Cairns;Anna L. Cox

  • Beyond Self-Tracking and Reminders: Designing Smartphone Apps That Support Habit Formation

    Katarzyna Stawarz;Anna L. Cox;Ann Blandford

  • Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience.

    Eduardo H. Calvillo Gámez;Paul A. Cairns;Anna L. Cox

  • Immersion in Digital Games: Review of Gaming Experience Research

    P Cairns;A Cox;A Imran Nordin

  • Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science

    Alexandra Eveleigh;Charlene Jennett;Ann Blandford;Philip Brohan

  • Cognitive Dimensions of Notations: Design Tools for Cognitive Technology

    Alan F. Blackwell;Carol Britton;Anna Louise Cox;Thomas R. G. Green

  • Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science

    Charlene Jennett;Laure Kloetzer;Daniel Schneider;Ioanna Iacovides

  • Don't forget your pill!: designing effective medication reminder apps that support users' daily routines

    Katarzyna Stawarz;Anna L. Cox;Ann Blandford

  • Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries

    Anna L. Cox;Sandy J.J. Gould;Marta E. Cecchinato;Ioanna Iacovides

  • CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    S. Brewster;G. Fitzpatrick;A. Cox;V. Kostakos

  • Investigating the information-seeking behaviour of academic lawyers: From Ellis's model to design

    Stephann Makri;Ann Blandford;Anna L. Cox

  • Not doing but thinking: the role of challenge in the gaming experience

    Anna Cox;Paul Cairns;Pari Shah;Michael Carroll

  • ‘At least they’re learning something’: the hazy line between collaboration and collusion

    Ruth Barrett;Anna L. Cox

  • Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience

    Eduardo H. Calvillo-Gámez;Paul Cairns;Anna L. Cox

  • Quantifying the Body and Caring for the Mind: Self-Tracking in Multiple Sclerosis

    Amid Ayobi;Paul Marshall;Anna L. Cox;Yunan Chen

  • “I want to be a captain! I want to be a captain!”: gamification in the old weather citizen science project

    Alexandra Eveleigh;Charlene Jennett;Stuart Lynn;Anna L. Cox

  • Do games attract or sustain engagement in citizen science?: a study of volunteer motivations

    Ioanna Iacovides;Charlene Jennett;Cassandra Cornish-Trestrail;Anna L. Cox

  • Smartwatches: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly?

    Marta E. Cecchinato;Anna L. Cox;Jon Bird

  • Recovering from an interruption: investigating speed-accuracy trade-offs in task resumption behavior.

    Duncan P. Brumby;Anna L. Cox;Jonathan Back;Sandy J. J. Gould

Frequent Co-Authors

Ann Blandford
Ann Blandford University College London
Paul Cairns
Paul Cairns University of York
Paul Marshall
Paul Marshall University of Bristol
Harold Thimbleby
Harold Thimbleby Swansea University
Regan L. Mandryk
Regan L. Mandryk University of Victoria
David W. Bates
David W. Bates Brigham and Women's Hospital
Sonia Johnson
Sonia Johnson University College London
Jorge Goncalves
Jorge Goncalves University of Melbourne
Paul Tae-Woo Lee
Paul Tae-Woo Lee Zhejiang University
Stephen M. Schueller
Stephen M. Schueller University of California, Irvine

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

Expanding your opportunities in computer science is now more accessible than ever, thanks to numerous online programs and certifications. Many students begin by exploring options such as an affordable data science degree, which can help you gain valuable analytical skills at a lower cost.

If you are interested in technology beyond software, consider an engineering pathway. Comparing electrical engineering online tuition costs can help you select an accredited program that fits your budget and career goals.

Looking for a shorter commitment? There are easy certifications that pay well, which can quickly boost your employability in tech, business, data analysis, and more.

For those ready to advance their careers rapidly, the quickest masters degree online options provide graduate credentials in under two years—sometimes even faster—so you can move up in your field without a lengthy study period.

Best Scientists Citing Anna L. Cox

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles