World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
41
Citations
11016
World Ranking
8638
National Ranking
20

Francisco C. Santos 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 Francisco C. Santos 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: 156 publications — 29th percentile

29% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Francisco C. Santos 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 Francisco C. Santos 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: 41 D-Index — 40th percentile

40% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation.

    F. C. Santos;J. M. Pacheco

  • Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games

    Francisco C. Santos;Marta D. Santos;Jorge M. Pacheco

  • Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations

    Francisco C. Santos;Jorge M. J.M. Pacheco;Tom Lenaerts

  • Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties

    Francisco C. Santos;Jorge M. J.M. Pacheco;Tom Lenaerts

  • Graph topology plays a determinant role in the evolution of cooperation

    F.C Santos;J.F Rodrigues;J.M Pacheco

  • Evolutionary dynamics of collective action in N-person stag hunt dilemmas

    Jorge M Pacheco;Francisco C Santos;Max O Souza;Brian Skyrms

  • Risk of collective failure provides an escape from the tragedy of the commons

    Francisco C. Santos;Jorge M. Pacheco

  • Epidemic spreading and cooperation dynamics on homogeneous small-world networks.

    F. C. Santos;J. F. Rodrigues;J. M. Pacheco

  • A new route to the evolution of cooperation.

    F. C. Santos;J. M. Pacheco

  • Evolutionary games in self-organizing populations

    Arne Traulsen;Francisco C. Santos;Jorge M. Pacheco

  • Evolution of cooperation under N-person snowdrift games

    Max O. Souza;Jorge M. Pacheco;Francisco C. Santos

  • Stern-Judging: A Simple, Successful Norm Which Promotes Cooperation under Indirect Reciprocity

    Jorge M. Pacheco;Francisco C. Santos;Fábio Augusto da Costa Carvalho Chalub

  • Reacting differently to adverse ties promotes cooperation in social networks.

    S. Van Segbroeck;S. Van Segbroeck;F. C. Santos;T. Lenaerts;J. M. Pacheco

  • Emergence of Fairness in Repeated Group Interactions

    S. Van Segbroeck;J. M. Pacheco;T. Lenaerts;T. Lenaerts;F. C. Santos

  • Cancer phenotype as the outcome of an evolutionary game between normal and malignant cells

    D. Dingli;Fábio Augusto da Costa Carvalho Chalub;F. C. Santos;S. Van Segbroeck

  • Adaptive contact networks change effective disease infectiousness and dynamics.

    Sven Van Segbroeck;Francisco C. Santos;Jorge Manuel Santos Pacheco

  • Dynamics of N-person snowdrift games in structured populations.

    Marta D. Santos;Flávio L. Pinheiro;Francisco C. Santos;Jorge M. Pacheco

  • Population Structure Induces a Symmetry Breaking Favoring the Emergence of Cooperation

    Jorge M. Pacheco;Jorge M. Pacheco;Flávio L. Pinheiro;Francisco C. Santos;Francisco C. Santos

  • Linking Individual and Collective Behavior in Adaptive Social Networks

    Flavio L. Pinheiro;Flavio L. Pinheiro;Francisco C. Santos;Jorge Manuel Santos Pacheco

  • From local to global dilemmas in social networks.

    Flávio L. Pinheiro;Jorge M. Pacheco;Jorge M. Pacheco;Francisco C. Santos;Francisco C. Santos

  • Co-evolution of pre-play signaling and cooperation.

    Francisco C. Santos;Jorge M. Pacheco;Brian Skyrms

Frequent Co-Authors

Luís Moniz Pereira
Luís Moniz Pereira Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Ana Paiva
Ana Paiva Instituto Superior Técnico
Hugues Bersini
Hugues Bersini Université Libre de Bruxelles
Brian Skyrms
Brian Skyrms University of California, Irvine
Karl Tuyls
Karl Tuyls DeepMind (United Kingdom)
Rémi Munos
Rémi Munos French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation - INRIA
Simon A. Levin
Simon A. Levin Princeton University
Vito Trianni
Vito Trianni National Research Council (CNR)
Ann Nowé
Ann Nowé Vrije Universiteit Brussel

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 online degree options in related STEM fields can provide flexible pathways for students aiming to expand their career prospects beyond traditional computer science. Accelerated programs such as a 2-year computer science degree online allow students to earn a degree quickly and efficiently, making them ideal for working professionals or those looking to shift careers rapidly.

For those interested in combining technology and sustainability, pursuing an environmental engineering bachelor's degree online offers specialized knowledge in addressing environmental challenges. Similarly, understanding the mechanical engineering cost of education can help prospective students budget and plan for a future in one of the most versatile engineering fields.

Additionally, earning an online physics degree equips students with analytical and problem-solving skills applicable to various scientific and technical careers. Each of these online degree options enables learners to tailor their studies to meet individual goals and market trends, increasing employability in today’s digital economy.

Best Scientists Citing Francisco C. Santos

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles