World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
37
Citations
8493
World Ranking
10526
National Ranking
4410

H. Andrew Schwartz 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 H. Andrew Schwartz 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: 103 publications — 9th percentile

9% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

H. Andrew Schwartz 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 H. Andrew Schwartz 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: 37 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

H. Andrew Schwartz is affiliated with Stony Brook University in the United States. Their primary field of study is Psychology, with a focus on related subfields including Social Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Sociology and Political Science, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, and Clinical Psychology.

The scientist's research covers various main topics, emphasizing areas such as Mental Health via Writing, Mental Health Research Topics, Digital Mental Health Interventions, Topic Modeling, Misinformation and Its Impacts, Computational and Text Analysis Methods, and Health Literacy and Information Accessibility.

Frequent publication venues for their work include:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Scientific Reports
  • Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
  • npj Digital Medicine
  • Psychological Methods

Their recent papers reflect a wide range of research interests. These include:

  • Natural Language Analysis and the Psychology of Verbal Behavior: The Past, Present, and Future States of the Field (2020) in Journal of Language and Social Psychology
  • Estimating geographic subjective well-being from Twitter: A comparison of dictionary and data-driven language methods (2020) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Bots and Misinformation Spread on Social Media: Implications for COVID-19 (2021) in Journal of Medical Internet Research
  • Large language models could change the future of behavioral healthcare: a proposal for responsible development and evaluation (2024) in npj Mental Health Research
  • Closed- and open-vocabulary approaches to text analysis: A review, quantitative comparison, and recommendations (2021) in Psychological Methods

H. Andrew Schwartz frequently collaborates with several coauthors, including Salvatore Giorgi, Lyle Ungar, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Oscar Kjell, and Brenda Curtis. These collaborations have contributed to multiple publications across various domains within their field of study.

Best Publications

  • Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Johannes C. Eichstaedt;Margaret L. Kern;Lukasz Dziurzynski

  • Facebook language predicts depression in medical records.

    Johannes C. Eichstaedt;Robert J. Smith;Raina M. Merchant;Lyle H. Ungar

  • Predictive Biases in Natural Language Processing Models: A Conceptual Framework and Overview

    Deven Santosh Shah;H. Andrew Schwartz;Dirk Hovy

  • Towards Assessing Changes in Degree of Depression through Facebook

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Johannes Eichstaedt;Margaret L. Kern;Gregory Park

  • Developing Age and Gender Predictive Lexica over Social Media

    Maarten Sap;Gregory Park;Johannes Eichstaedt;Margaret Kern

  • Gaining insights from social media language: Methodologies and challenges.

    Margaret L Kern;Gregory Park;Johannes C Eichstaedt;H Andrew Schwartz

  • Data-Driven Content Analysis of Social Media A Systematic Overview of Automated Methods

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Lyle H. Ungar

  • Estimating geographic subjective well-being from Twitter: A comparison of dictionary and data-driven language methods.

    Kokil Jaidka;Salvatore Giorgi;H. Andrew Schwartz;Margaret L. Kern

  • PREDICTING INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA.

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Maarten Sap;Margaret L. Kern;Johannes C. Eichstaedt

  • Bots and Misinformation Spread on Social Media: Implications for COVID-19.

    McKenzie Himelein-Wachowiak;Salvatore Giorgi;Salvatore Giorgi;Amanda Devoto;Muhammad Rahman

  • Women are Warmer but No Less Assertive than Men: Gender and Language on Facebook.

    Gregory Park;David Bryce Yaden;H. Andrew Schwartz;Margaret L. Kern

  • The role of personality, age, and gender in tweeting about mental illness

    Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro;Johannes Eichstaedt;Gregory Park;Maarten Sap

  • The online social self: An open vocabulary approach to personality.

    Margaret L. Kern;Johannes C. Eichstaedt;H. Andrew Schwartz;Lukasz Dziurzynski

  • Modelling Valence and Arousal in Facebook Posts

    Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro;H. Andrew Schwartz;Gregory Park;Johannes Eichstaedt

  • Closed- and open-vocabulary approaches to text analysis: A review, quantitative comparison, and recommendations.

    Johannes C. Eichstaedt;Margaret L. Kern;David B. Yaden;H. A. Schwartz

  • DLATK: Differential Language Analysis ToolKit

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Salvatore Giorgi;Maarten Sap;Patrick Crutchley

  • Twitter as a Potential Data Source for Cardiovascular Disease Research.

    Lauren Sinnenberg;Christie L. DiSilvestro;Christina Mancheno;Karl Dailey

  • Living in the Past, Present, and Future: Measuring Temporal Orientation With Language

    Gregory Park;H. Andrew Schwartz;H. Andrew Schwartz;Maarten Sap;Margaret L. Kern

  • Evaluating the predictability of medical conditions from social media posts.

    Raina M. Merchant;David A. Asch;Patrick Crutchley;Lyle H. Ungar

  • The language of well-being: Tracking fluctuations in emotion experience through everyday speech.

    Jessie Sun;H Andrew Schwartz;Youngseo Son;Margaret L Kern

  • Suicide Risk Assessment with Multi-level Dual-Context Language and BERT

    Matthew Matero;Akash Idnani;Youngseo Son;Salvatore Giorgi

  • Can Twitter be used to predict county excessive alcohol consumption rates

    Brenda Curtis;Salvatore Giorgi;Anneke E. K. Buffone;Lyle H. Ungar

  • The Role of Personality, Age and Gender in Tweeting about Mental Illnesses

    Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro;Johannes Eichstaedt;Gregory Park;Maarten Sap

Frequent Co-Authors

Lyle H. Ungar
Lyle H. Ungar University of Pennsylvania
Johannes C. Eichstaedt
Johannes C. Eichstaedt Stanford University
Margaret L. Kern
Margaret L. Kern University of Melbourne
David Stillwell
David Stillwell University of Cambridge
Michal Kosinski
Michal Kosinski Stanford University
Martin E. P. Seligman
Martin E. P. Seligman University of Pennsylvania
Maarten Sap
Maarten Sap Carnegie Mellon University
David A. Asch
David A. Asch University of Pennsylvania
Roman Kotov
Roman Kotov Stony Brook University
Dolores Albarracín
Dolores Albarracín University of Pennsylvania

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 education opens up a variety of pathways connected to computer science. Many aspiring professionals are interested in fast-track educational options like a computer science accelerated program, which is ideal for those looking to enter the tech field quickly.

For those wanting to expand into specialized industries, there are alternatives to traditional computer science degrees. Engineers seeking flexibility might consider an environmental engineer degree online or an online degree in mechanical engineering, both offering affordable routes to technical careers.

Science enthusiasts passionate about problem-solving might be interested in the cheapest online physics degree, which can also lead to diverse technology occupations.

Whether you want to accelerate your studies, pursue an engineering discipline, or focus on physical sciences, online programs make it possible to access quality education and advance your career—all from the comfort of your home.

Best Scientists Citing H. Andrew Schwartz

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles