World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Emilia Mendes

Emilia Mendes

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
58
Citations
10291
World Ranking
3700
National Ranking
12

Emilia Mendes 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 Emilia Mendes 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: 250 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.

Emilia Mendes 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 Emilia Mendes 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: 58 D-Index — 75th percentile

75% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Emilia Mendes is affiliated with Aarhus University in Denmark, with a research focus primarily situated within the discipline of Computer Science.

Their scholarly work concentrates on several interconnected subfields, including:

  • Information Systems
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Computer Networks and Communications

The key topics covered in their research encompass:

  • Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Software Engineering Research
  • Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Open Source Software Innovations
  • Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Big Data and Business Intelligence

Emilia Mendes has contributed to several publication venues, with a frequent presence in:

  • Information and Software Technology
  • Journal of Systems and Software
  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Among their recent papers are the following:

  • "Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studies" (2022), Information and Software Technology
  • "On the performance of hybrid search strategies for systematic literature reviews in software engineering" (2020), Information and Software Technology
  • "Guidelines for the search strategy to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering" (2020), Information and Software Technology
  • "Investigating the relationship between personalities and agile team climate of software professionals in a telecom company" (2020), Information and Software Technology
  • "Multifactorial 10-Year Prior Diagnosis Prediction Model of Dementia" (2020), International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Their collaborators over multiple publications include:

  • Claes Wohlin
  • Marcos Kalinowski
  • Katia Romero Felizardo
  • Sai Datta Vishnubhotla
  • Fabiana Freitas Mendes

Best Publications

  • Cross versus Within-Company Cost Estimation Studies: A Systematic Review

    B.A. Kitchenham;E. Mendes;G.H. Travassos

  • Empirical Studies of Pair Programming for CS/SE Teaching in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review

    N. Salleh;E. Mendes;J. Grundy

  • Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studies

    Unknown

  • A systematic review of software maintainability prediction and metrics

    Mehwish Riaz;Emilia Mendes;Ewan Tempero

  • Effort estimation in agile software development: a systematic literature review

    Muhammad Usman;Emilia Mendes;Francila Weidt;Ricardo Britto

  • A Comparative Study of Cost Estimation Models for Web Hypermedia Applications

    Emilia Mendes;Ian Watson;Chris Triggs;Nile Mosley

  • Why comparative effort prediction studies may be invalid

    Barbara Kitchenham;Emilia Mendes

  • Taxonomies in software engineering

    Muhammad Usman;Ricardo Britto;Jrgen Brstler;Emilia Mendes

  • Web metrics - estimating design and authoring effort

    E. Mendes;N. Mosley;S. Counsell

  • Software productivity measurement using multiple size measures

    B. Kitchenham;E. Mendes

  • A Probabilistic Approach to Web Portal's Data Quality Evaluation

    A. Caro;C. Calero;E. Mendes;M. Piattini

  • On the performance of hybrid search strategies for systematic literature reviews in software engineering

    Erica Mourão;João Felipe N. Pimentel;Leonardo Gresta Paulino Murta;Marcos Kalinowski

  • Further comparison of cross-company and within-company effort estimation models for Web applications

    E. Mendes;B. Kitchenham

  • Web Engineering

    Nile Mosley;Emilia Mendes

  • Software process improvement success factors for small and medium Web companies: A qualitative study

    Muhammad Sulayman;Cathy Urquhart;Emilia Mendes;Stefan Seidel

  • A systematic review of cross- vs. within- company cost estimation studies

    Barbara Kitchenham;Emilia Mendes;Guilherme H. Travassos

  • How Reliable Are Systematic Reviews in Empirical Software Engineering

    S MacDonell;M Shepperd;B Kitchenham;E Mendes

  • Bayesian Network Models for Web Effort Prediction: A Comparative Study

    E. Mendes;N. Mosley

  • Guidelines for the search strategy to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering

    Claes Wohlin;Emilia Mendes;Katia Romero Felizardo;Marcos Kalinowski

  • A systematic review of Web engineering research

    E. Mendes

  • A comparison of development effort estimation techniques for Web hypermedia applications

    E. Mendes;I. Watson;C. Triggs;N. Mosley

  • Introduction to Bayesian Networks

    Emilia Mendes

Frequent Co-Authors

Steve Counsell
Steve Counsell Brunel University London
Filomena Ferrucci
Filomena Ferrucci University of Salerno
Guilherme Horta Travassos
Guilherme Horta Travassos Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Claes Wohlin
Claes Wohlin Blekinge Institute of Technology
Tayana Conte
Tayana Conte Federal University of Amazonas
Kai Petersen
Kai Petersen Blekinge Institute of Technology
Ewan Tempero
Ewan Tempero University of Auckland
Stephen G. MacDonell
Stephen G. MacDonell Victoria University of Wellington
John Grundy
John Grundy Monash University
Barbara Kitchenham
Barbara Kitchenham Keele 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

Exploring Computer Science in the USA opens up many opportunities beyond traditional four-year programs. For those seeking a quicker route to employment, an associate's degree online can provide valuable skills and foundational knowledge in just a short time.

If you’re interested in fields that combine technology with organizational skills, consider looking at the best online business management degree programs. These degrees cover key topics like project management, leadership, and IT strategy, and are a strong complement to tech careers.

For a traditional path, earning an online bachelor degree in computer science or related fields is increasingly popular. These programs offer flexibility and are often more affordable than on-campus options.

Engineering-minded students may opt for an online bachelor's in engineering, merging hands-on technical skills with online convenience. Diverse online degree pathways mean you can build a technology career that fits your schedule, learning style, and long-term goals.

Best Scientists Citing Emilia Mendes

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles