World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Computer Science
Estonia
2025

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
33
Citations
5317
World Ranking
12584
National Ranking
6

Dietmar Pfahl 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 Dietmar Pfahl 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: 249 publications — 62nd percentile

62% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Dietmar Pfahl 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 Dietmar Pfahl 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: 33 D-Index — 13th percentile

13% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2025 - Research.com Computer Science in Estonia Leader Award
  • 2006 - ACM Senior Member

Overview

Dietmar Pfahl is affiliated with the University of Tartu in Estonia and specializes in computer science with a strong focus on software engineering research. Their work spans multiple subfields including information systems, software, computer networks and communications, artificial intelligence, and general health professions.

Pfahl's research topics cover areas such as:

  • Software Engineering Research
  • Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Formal Methods in Verification

Recent significant publications by Pfahl or closely related works in their field include:

  • "Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research" (2020), published in arXiv (Cornell University)
  • "What Makes Agile Software Development Agile?" (2021), published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
  • "Towards the statistical construction of hybrid development methods" (2020), published in the Journal of Software Evolution and Process
  • "Systematic courseware development using an integrated engineering style method" (2022), published in Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft)
  • "Safety Testing of Automated Driving Systems: A Literature Review" (2023), published in IEEE Access

Pfahl frequently collaborates with several co-authors, including:

  • Alejandra Duque-Torres
  • Claus Klammer
  • Rudolf Ramler
  • Marco Kuhrmann
  • Kristiina Rahkema

They have published extensively in prominent venues such as:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Journal of Software Evolution and Process

Recognized by their peers, Pfahl has been awarded the ACM Senior Member status since 2006, indicating their established position within the computing research community.

Best Publications

  • Reporting Experiments in Software Engineering

    Andreas Jedlitschka;Marcus Ciolkowski;Dietmar Pfahl

  • Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering

    A. Jedlitschka;D. Pfahl

  • How do scientists develop and use scientific software

    Jo Erskine Hannay;Carolyn MacLeod;Janice Singer;Hans Petter Langtangen

  • Naming the pain in requirements engineering

    D. Méndez Fernández;S. Wagner;M. Kalinowski;M. Felderer

  • Structure and evolution of package dependency networks

    Riivo Kikas;Georgios Gousios;Marlon Dumas;Dietmar Pfahl

  • Trade-off analysis for requirements selection

    Günther Ruhe;Armin Eberlein;Dietmar Pfahl

  • Using simulation to analyse the impact of software requirement volatility on project performance

    Dietmar Pfahl;Karl Lebsanft

  • Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys

    Stefan Wagner;Daniel Méndez Fernández;Michael Felderer;Antonio Vetrò

  • Empirical software engineering issues : critical assessment and future directions. International workshop, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, June 26-30, 2006 : revised papers

    H. Dieter Rombach;Victor R. Basili;Richard W. Selby

  • Reflections on 10 years of software process simulation modeling: a systematic review

    He Zhang;Barbara Kitchenham;Dietmar Pfahl

  • Quantitative WinWin: a new method for decision support in requirements negotiation

    Günther Ruhe;Armin Eberlein;Dietmar Pfahl

  • Using simulation for assessing the real impact of test-coverage on defect-coverage

    L.C. Briand;D. Pfahl

  • Evaluating the learning effectiveness of using simulations in software project management education: results from a twice replicated experiment

    Dietmar Pfahl;Oliver Laitenberger;Günther Ruhe;Jörg Dorsch

  • Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research

    Paul Ralph;Nauman bin Ali;Sebastian Baltes;Domenico Bianculli

  • A method for efficient measurement-based COTS assessment and selection method description and evaluation results

    M. Ochs;D. Pfahl;G. Chrobok-Diening;B. Nothhelfer-Kolb

  • Using dynamic and contextual features to predict issue lifetime in GitHub projects

    Riivo Kikas;Marlon Dumas;Dietmar Pfahl

  • Software process simulation modeling: an extended systematic review

    He Zhang;Barbara Kitchenham;Dietmar Pfahl

  • Are team personality and climate related to satisfaction and software quality? Aggregating results from a twice replicated experiment

    Silvia T. Acuna;Marta N. Gomez;Jo Erskine Hannay;Natalia Juristo

  • A CBT module with integrated simulation component for software project management education and training

    Dietmar Pfahl;Marco Klemm;Günther Ruhe

  • What Makes Agile Software Development Agile

    Marco Kuhrmann;Paolo Tell;Regina Hebig;Jil Ann Christin Klunder

  • What Do We Know about Scientific Software Development's Agile Practices?

    M. T. Sletholt;J. E. Hannay;D. Pfahl;H. P. Langtangen

  • Can we evaluate the quality of software engineering experiments

    Barbara Kitchenham;Dag I. K. Sjøberg;O. Pearl Brereton;David Budgen

  • Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering: Contemporary Problems, Causes, and Effects in Practice

    D. Méndez Fernández;S. Wagner;M. Kalinowski;M. Felderer

Frequent Co-Authors

Guenther Ruhe
Guenther Ruhe University of Calgary
Michael Felderer
Michael Felderer University of Cologne
Mika V. Mäntylä
Mika V. Mäntylä University of Helsinki
Barbara Kitchenham
Barbara Kitchenham Keele University
Jürgen Münch
Jürgen Münch Reutlingen University
Andreas Birk
Andreas Birk Jacobs University
Markku Oivo
Markku Oivo University of Oulu
Natalia Juristo
Natalia Juristo Technical University of Madrid
Kai Petersen
Kai Petersen Blekinge Institute of Technology
Marlon Dumas
Marlon Dumas University of Tartu

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

Exploring computer science opens doors to several valuable career paths and degrees—many accessible entirely online. For those interested in engineering, consider reviewing electrical engineering degree online admissions to discover flexible programs that align with tech-driven industries.

If you're looking to enter the workforce quickly, many certifications for jobs can boost your resume and earning potential in just a few months. These affordable options complement a computer science background, making you stand out to employers.

For those seeking advanced education in a short timeframe, explore fastest online master's degree programs. These accelerated paths allow you to gain specialized knowledge and advance your career rapidly.

Finally, when planning for long-term success, research the most worthwhile masters degrees that are highly valued by employers. Choosing in-demand programs ensures you stay competitive in evolving technology fields.

Best Scientists Citing Dietmar Pfahl

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles