World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
43
Citations
12018
World Ranking
7798
National Ranking
3374

Dan Cosley 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 Dan Cosley 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: 125 publications — 17th percentile

17% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Dan Cosley 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 Dan Cosley 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: 43 D-Index — 46th percentile

46% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Dan Cosley is affiliated with the National Science Foundation in the United States. Their research primarily spans the field of social sciences, with a particular focus in subfields including sociology and political science, statistical and nonlinear physics, marketing, automotive engineering, and education.

Their main research topics involve the digital economy and work transformation, sharing economy and platforms, transportation and mobility innovations, complex network analysis techniques, the impact of technology on adolescents, child development and digital technology, and opinion dynamics and social influence.

Dan Cosley has published multiple papers across prominent venues. Frequent publication venues include the Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, and Social Sciences.

Recent papers authored or coauthored by Dan Cosley include:

  • Predictability of Popularity: Gaps between Prediction and Understanding (2021), Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
  • Privacy, Surveillance, and Power in the Gig Economy (2022), CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • Toward a More Inclusive Gig Economy: Risks and Opportunities for Workers with Disabilities (2022), Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Friends, Strangers, and the Value of Ego Networks for Recommendation (2021), Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
  • Understanding Cross-lingual Pragmatic Misunderstandings in Email Communication (2022), Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Dan Cosley has collaborated frequently with several researchers, including Shruti Sannon, Diana Freed, Natalya N. Bazarova, Sunny Consolvo, and Patrick Gage Kelley. Each of these coauthors has contributed multiple times to joint publications.

Best Publications

  • Feedback effects between similarity and social influence in online communities

    David Crandall;Dan Cosley;Daniel Huttenlocher;Jon Kleinberg

  • Getting to know you: learning new user preferences in recommender systems

    Al Mamunur Rashid;Istvan Albert;Dan Cosley;Shyong K. Lam

  • Is seeing believing?: how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions

    Dan Cosley;Shyong K. Lam;Istvan Albert;Joseph A. Konstan

  • PolyLens: a recommender system for groups of users

    Mark O'Connor;Dan Cosley;Joseph A. Konstan;John Riedl

  • Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

    Dan Cosley;Andrea Forte;Luigina Ciolfi;David McDonald

  • Inferring social ties from geographic coincidences

    David J. Crandall;Lars Backstrom;Dan Cosley;Siddharth Suri

  • On the recommending of citations for research papers

    Sean M. McNee;Istvan Albert;Dan Cosley;Prateep Gopalkrishnan

  • tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution

    Shilad Sen;Shyong K. Lam;Al Mamunur Rashid;Dan Cosley

  • SuggestBot: using intelligent task routing to help people find work in wikipedia

    Dan Cosley;Dan Frankowski;Loren Terveen;John Riedl

  • Finding social roles in Wikipedia

    Howard T. Welser;Dan Cosley;Gueorgi Kossinets;Austin Lin

  • Managing Impressions and Relationships on Facebook Self-Presentational and Relational Concerns Revealed Through the Analysis of Language Style

    Natalya N. Bazarova;Jessie G. Taft;Yoon Hyung Choi;Dan Cosley

  • The many faces of facebook: experiencing social media as performance, exhibition, and personal archive

    Xuan Zhao;Niloufar Salehi;Sasha Naranjit;Sara Alwaalan

  • Think different: increasing online community participation using uniqueness and group dissimilarity

    Pamela J. Ludford;Dan Cosley;Dan Frankowski;Loren Terveen

  • Social Sharing of Emotions on Facebook: Channel Differences, Satisfaction, and Replies

    Natalya N. Bazarova;Yoon Hyung Choi;Victoria Schwanda Sosik;Dan Cosley

  • Pensieve: supporting everyday reminiscence

    S. Tejaswi Peesapati;Victoria Schwanda;Johnathon Schultz;Matt Lepage

  • Idea expander: supporting group brainstorming with conversationally triggered visual thinking stimuli

    Hao-Chuan Wang;Dan Cosley;Susan R. Fussell

  • How oversight improves member-maintained communities

    Dan Cosley;Dan Frankowski;Sara Kiesler;Loren Terveen

  • Do social explanations work?: studying and modeling the effects of social explanations in recommender systems

    Amit Sharma;Dan Cosley

  • Taking a HIT: Designing around Rejection, Mistrust, Risk, and Workers' Experiences in Amazon Mechanical Turk

    Brian McInnis;Dan Cosley;Chaebong Nam;Gilly Leshed

  • Automatic Archiving versus Default Deletion: What Snapchat Tells Us About Ephemerality in Design

    Bin Xu;Pamara Chang;Christopher L. Welker;Natalya N. Bazarova

Frequent Co-Authors

Susan R. Fussell
Susan R. Fussell Cornell University
John Riedl
John Riedl University of Minnesota
Loren Terveen
Loren Terveen University of Minnesota
Claire Cardie
Claire Cardie Cornell University
Joseph A. Konstan
Joseph A. Konstan University of Minnesota
Jeffrey T. Hancock
Jeffrey T. Hancock Stanford University
Jon Kleinberg
Jon Kleinberg Cornell University
Steve Lawrence
Steve Lawrence Google (United States)
Siddharth Suri
Siddharth Suri Microsoft (United States)

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

If you’re interested in computer science studies in the USA, exploring other related online degrees and career pathways can expand your options. Many students start with an accelerated online associates degree, allowing them to build fundamental skills quickly and at an affordable rate.

For those who want to combine their technical training with business skills, enrolling in the best online business degree programs can offer a strong foundation in management, marketing, and entrepreneurship—critical skills for tech leaders.

Budget is often a concern, but the most affordable bachelor's degree online programs help students gain quality education without excessive debt. These programs also offer flexible schedules for working professionals or parents.

If you’re drawn to more technical fields outside pure computer science, consider an online bachelor's in engineering for a practical, hands-on approach to technology. Exploring these related degree programs opens diverse career pathways in business, technology, and engineering throughout the USA.

Best Scientists Citing Dan Cosley

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles