World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
39
Citations
24453
World Ranking
9459
National Ranking
4002

David J. States 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 J. States 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: 106 publications — 10th percentile

10% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

David J. States 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 J. States 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: 39 D-Index — 33rd percentile

33% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

David J. States is affiliated with the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor in the United States. Their academic profile is focused on their institutional connection without further details on specific research contributions or topics.

No recent papers, frequent co-authors, publication venues, book publications, fields of study, subfields, or main topics of work are listed for David J. States. Additionally, there are no awards recorded for this scholar.

Best Publications

  • Identification of protein coding regions by database similarity search.

    Warren Gish;David J. States;David J. States

  • Overview of the HUPO Plasma Proteome Project: results from the pilot phase with 35 collaborating laboratories and multiple analytical groups, generating a core dataset of 3020 proteins and a publicly-available database.

    Gilbert S. Omenn;David J. States;Marcin Adamski;Thomas W. Blackwell

  • PRIDE: The proteomics identifications database

    Lennart Martens;Henning Hermjakob;Philip Jones;Marcin Adamski

  • SAGA: a subgraph matching tool for biological graphs

    Yuanyuan Tian;Richard C. Mceachin;Carlos Santos;David J. States

  • Challenges in deriving high-confidence protein identifications from data gathered by a HUPO plasma proteome collaborative study.

    David J States;Gilbert S Omenn;Thomas W Blackwell;Damian Fermin

  • GLay: community structure analysis of biological networks

    Gang Su;Allan Kuchinsky;John H. Morris;David J. States

  • Systematic comparison of the human saliva and plasma proteomes

    Weihong Yan;Rolf Apweiler;Brian M Balgley;Pinmanee Boontheung

  • Information enhancement methods for large scale sequence analysis

    Jean-Michel Claverie;David J. States

  • Blind men and elephants: What do citation summaries tell us about a research article?

    Aaron Elkiss;Siwei Shen;Anthony Fader;Güneş Erkan

  • Blind men and elephants: What do citation summaries tell us about a research article?

    Unknown

  • Computational Proteomics Analysis System (CPAS): an extensible, open-source analytic system for evaluating and publishing proteomic data and high throughput biological experiments.

    Adam Rauch;Matthew Bellew;Jimmy Eng;Matthew Fitzgibbon

  • Integrating and annotating the interactome using the MiMI plugin for cytoscape

    Jing Gao;Alex S. Ade;V. Glenn Tarcea;Terry E. Weymouth

  • Human Proteinpedia enables sharing of human protein data.

    Suresh Mathivanan;Suresh Mathivanan;Mukhtar Ahmed;Natalie G Ahn;Hainard Alexandre

  • Improved Sensitivity of Nucleic Acid Database Searches Using Application-Specific Scoring Matrices

    David J. States;Warren Gish;Stephen F. Altschul

  • Michigan Molecular Interactions (MiMI): putting the jigsaw puzzle together

    Magesh Jayapandian;Adriane Chapman;V. Glenn Tarcea;Cong Yu

  • SciMiner: Web-based literature mining tool for target identification and functional enrichment analysis

    Junguk Hur;Adam D. Schuyler;David J. States;Eva L. Feldman

  • Combined use of sequence similarity and codon bias for coding region identification

    David J. States;Warren Gish

  • Novel gene and gene model detection using a whole genome open reading frame analysis in proteomics

    Damian Fermin;Baxter B Allen;Thomas W Blackwell;Rajasree Menon

  • CLO: The cell line ontology

    Sirarat Sarntivijai;Sirarat Sarntivijai;Yu Lin;Zuoshuang Xiang;Terrence F. Meehan

  • Michigan molecular interactions r2: from interacting proteins to pathways

    V. Glenn Tarcea;Terry E. Weymouth;Alexander S. Ade;Aaron V. Bookvich

  • A functional annotation of subproteomes in human plasma

    Peipei Ping;Thomas M. Vondriska;Chad J. Creighton;T. K.B. Gandhi

Frequent Co-Authors

Alfred O. Hero
Alfred O. Hero University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
James Douglas Engel
James Douglas Engel University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Gilbert S. Omenn
Gilbert S. Omenn University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Brian D. Athey
Brian D. Athey University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Hosagrahar V. Jagadish
Hosagrahar V. Jagadish University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Pankaj K. Agarwal
Pankaj K. Agarwal Duke University
Lawrence Hunter
Lawrence Hunter University of Colorado Denver
Jimmy K. Eng
Jimmy K. Eng University of Washington
Rolf Apweiler
Rolf Apweiler European Bioinformatics Institute

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

Studying Computer Science in the USA opens multiple avenues for online learning and career growth. For those starting their educational journey, pursuing online associate degrees can be a flexible and affordable option. These programs provide foundational knowledge, preparing students for entry-level tech roles or further study.

Budget-conscious learners can explore cheap online degrees fast to quickly enhance their skills without breaking the bank. Such degrees allow students to manage time and costs efficiently while earning credentials from accredited institutions.

If you have a lower high school GPA, there are online colleges that accept 2.0 gpa, expanding access to quality education. These options ensure more students can achieve their career goals, regardless of past academic performance.

A computer science background also provides flexibility in diverse career pathways. Just as environmental science graduates can pursue fields highlighted in what can you get with an environmental science degree, computer science alumni can explore roles in software development, data analysis, IT management, and more.

Best Scientists Citing David J. States

Recently Published Articles