World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
45
Citations
19887
World Ranking
6986
National Ranking
420

David Budgen 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 David Budgen 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: 189 publications — 42nd percentile

42% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

David Budgen 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 David Budgen 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: 45 D-Index — 51st percentile

51% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

David Budgen is affiliated with Durham University in the United Kingdom and has a focused research portfolio primarily in Computer Science. Their work encompasses significant contributions to software engineering techniques and practices, with additional interests in artificial intelligence, information systems, and machine learning applications in healthcare.

The main fields of study covered by David Budgen include:

  • Computer Science

Within this domain, subfields of particular emphasis are:

  • Information Systems
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Computer Networks and Communications
  • Management Information Systems
  • Information Systems and Management

David Budgen's research spans various topics, notably:

  • Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Software Engineering Research
  • Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Business Process Modeling and Analysis
  • Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Machine Learning in Healthcare

Their recent publications demonstrate engagement with both software engineering and health informatics areas. These include:

  • "What Support do Systematic Reviews Provide for Evidence-informed Teaching about Software Engineering Practice?" (2020), published in e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
  • "Data Anonymization for Pervasive Health Care: Systematic Literature Mapping Study" (2021), published in JMIR Medical Informatics
  • "Improving Current Glycated Hemoglobin Prediction in Adults: Use of Machine Learning Algorithms With Electronic Health Records" (2021), published in JMIR Medical Informatics
  • "SEGRESS: Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies" (2022), published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
  • "How Should Software Engineering Secondary Studies Include Grey Material?" (2022), published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Frequent co-authors collaborating with David Budgen include:

  • Noura Al Moubayed
  • Barbara Kitchenham
  • Lech Madeyski
  • Matthew Watson
  • Pearl Brereton

The primary publication venues where David Budgen's research appears are:

  • JMIR Medical Informatics
  • IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
  • e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
  • Information and Software Technology
  • International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications

Best Publications

  • Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review

    Barbara Kitchenham;O. Pearl Brereton;David Budgen;Mark Turner

  • Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain

    Pearl Brereton;Barbara A. Kitchenham;David Budgen;Mark Turner

  • Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A tertiary study

    Barbara Kitchenham;Rialette Pretorius;David Budgen;O. Pearl Brereton

  • Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review

    Mark Turner;Barbara Kitchenham;Pearl Brereton;Stuart Charters

  • Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews

    Barbara Ann Kitchenham;David Budgen;Pearl Brereton

  • Turning software into a service

    M. Turner;D. Budgen;P. Brereton

  • Using mapping studies as the basis for further research - A participant-observer case study

    Barbara A. Kitchenham;David Budgen;O. Pearl Brereton

  • Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering

    David Budgen;Pearl Brereton

  • Using Mapping Studies in Software Engineering.

    David Budgen;Mark Turner;Pearl Brereton;Barbara A. Kitchenham

  • Software design

    David Budgen

  • Service-based software: the future for flexible software

    K. Bennett;P. Layzell;D. Budgen;P. Brereton

  • Robust Statistical Methods for Empirical Software Engineering

    Barbara Kitchenham;Lech Madeyski;David Budgen;Jacky Keung

  • Using a protocol template for case study planning

    Pearl Brereton;Barbara Kitchenham;David Budgen;Zhi Li

  • Component-based systems: a classification of issues

    P. Brereton;D. Budgen

  • The value of mapping studies: a participantobserver case study

    Barbara A. Kitchenham;David Budgen;O. Pearl Brereton

  • Protocol for a Tertiary study of Systematic Literature Reviews and Evidence-based Guidelines in IT and Software Engineering

    Barbara Kitchenham;Pearl Brereton;David Budgen;Mark Turner

  • Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review

    D. Budgen;A. J. Burn;O. P. Brereton;B. A. Kitchenham

  • Evidence relating to Object-Oriented software design: A survey

    J. Bailey;D. Budgen;M. Turner;B. Kitchenham

  • What Do We Know about the Effectiveness of Software Design Patterns

    Cheng Zhang;D. Budgen

  • Refining the systematic literature review process--two participant-observer case studies

    Barbara A. Kitchenham;Pearl Brereton;Mark Turner;Mahmood K. Niazi

  • Software Design: Creating Solutions for Ill-Structured Problems

    David Budgen

  • Revisions to Software Engineering 2004: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering

    Mark Ardis;David Budgen;Gregory W. Hislop;Renée McCauley

Frequent Co-Authors

Pearl Brereton
Pearl Brereton Keele University
Barbara Kitchenham
Barbara Kitchenham Keele University
Malcolm Munro
Malcolm Munro Durham University
Jie Xu
Jie Xu Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
Mahmood Niazi
Mahmood Niazi King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Jeff Offutt
Jeff Offutt George Mason University
Willem Visser
Willem Visser Amazon (United States)
Dag I. K. Sjøberg
Dag I. K. Sjøberg University of Oslo
Martin Höst
Martin Höst Malmö University
Per Runeson
Per Runeson Lund 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

As you consider studying Computer Science in the USA, it’s valuable to also explore related degrees and flexible career paths available online. Technology-driven fields continue to rank among the best college majors for the future, offering strong job prospects and competitive salaries. Pursuing a related major can provide you with vital skills to stay ahead in a rapidly changing job market.

If advancing your education is a priority, many opt for an easiest online masters degree program to quickly boost their credentials while balancing work and life commitments. Doctoral studies are also increasingly accessible, with cheap online phd options helping students minimize debt while maximizing academic achievement.

For those aiming for leadership or academia, consider alternative routes like 1 year edd programs online. These fast-track programs are ideal if you want to earn an advanced degree in as little as 12 months. With a range of online degrees now available, you have flexible options tailored to your career goals in technology and beyond.

Best Scientists Citing David Budgen

Trending Scientists