World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
63
Citations
26549
World Ranking
2684
National Ranking
1331

Janyce Wiebe 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 Janyce Wiebe 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: 250 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: 560 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: 424 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 378 scientists 262–271 publications: 300 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: 145 publications — 25th percentile

25% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Janyce Wiebe 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 Janyce Wiebe sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 984 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 969 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 765 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 517 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: 63 D-Index — 81st percentile

81% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Janyce Wiebe is affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh in the United States. They have contributed to academic research primarily through their association with this institution.

While detailed publication data such as recent papers, frequent co-authors, and frequent publication venues are not available, their professional presence at a major research university indicates a role in advancing research efforts in their field.

There is no specific information provided regarding their areas of study, subfields, or main topics of research. Similarly, no records exist for any book publications or awards won.

Given the absence of additional data, no further details about their individual research contributions or collaborations can be presented at this time.

Best Publications

  • Recognizing Contextual Polarity in Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis

    Theresa Wilson;Janyce Wiebe;Paul Hoffmann

  • Annotating Expressions of Opinions and Emotions in Language

    Janyce Wiebe;Theresa Wilson;Claire Cardie

  • Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions

    Ellen Riloff;Janyce Wiebe

  • Learning Subjective Language

    Janyce Wiebe;Theresa Wilson;Rebecca Bruce;Matthew Bell

  • Effects of adjective orientation and gradability on sentence subjectivity

    Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou;Janyce M. Wiebe

  • Recognizing contextual polarity: An exploration of features for phrase-level sentiment analysis

    Theresa Wilson;Janyce Wiebe;Paul Hoffmann

  • Learning Subjective Adjectives from Corpora

    Janyce Wiebe

  • Creating subjective and objective sentence classifiers from unannotated texts

    Janyce Wiebe;Ellen Riloff

  • Learning subjective nouns using extraction pattern bootstrapping

    Ellen Riloff;Janyce Wiebe;Theresa Wilson

  • Development and Use of a Gold-Standard Data Set for Subjectivity Classifications

    Janyce M. Wiebe;Rebecca F. Bruce;Thomas P. O'Hara

  • OpinionFinder: A System for Subjectivity Analysis

    Theresa Wilson;Paul Hoffmann;Swapna Somasundaran;Jason Kessler

  • Just how mad are you? finding strong and weak opinion clauses

    Theresa Wilson;Janyce Wiebe;Rebecca Hwa

  • SemEval-2016 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity, Monolingual and Cross-Lingual Evaluation

    Eneko Agirre;Carmen Banea;Daniel M. Cer;Mona T. Diab

  • SemEval-2015 Task 2: Semantic Textual Similarity, English, Spanish and Pilot on Interpretability

    Eneko Agirre;Carmen Banea;Claire Cardie;Daniel Cer

  • SemEval-2014 Task 10: Multilingual Semantic Textual Similarity

    Eneko Agirre;Carmen Banea;Claire Cardie;Daniel Cer

  • Learning Multilingual Subjective Language via Cross-Lingual Projections

    Rada Mihalcea;Carmen Banea;Janyce Wiebe

  • Tracking point of view in narrative

    Janyce M. Wiebe

  • Recognizing Stances in Ideological On-Line Debates

    Swapna Somasundaran;Janyce Wiebe

  • Recognizing Stances in Online Debates

    Swapna Somasundaran;Janyce Wiebe

  • Word Sense and Subjectivity

    Janyce Wiebe;Rada Mihalcea

Frequent Co-Authors

Rada Mihalcea
Rada Mihalcea University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Claire Cardie
Claire Cardie Cornell University
Ellen Riloff
Ellen Riloff University of Utah
Diane J. Litman
Diane J. Litman University of Pittsburgh
Wendy W. Chapman
Wendy W. Chapman University of Melbourne
Ted Pedersen
Ted Pedersen University of Minnesota
Mona Diab
Mona Diab Carnegie Mellon University
Owen Rambow
Owen Rambow Stony Brook University
Eneko Agirre
Eneko Agirre University of the Basque Country
German Rigau
German Rigau University of the Basque Country

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 computer science degree options can open doors for students who need flexibility or wish to fast-track their education. Many accredited U.S. universities now offer robust online programs, allowing you to study from home while preparing for dynamic tech careers.

If your GPA is a concern, you’re not alone. There are online colleges that accept 2.0 gpa, making it possible to start or continue your studies even with lower past academic performance. These institutions can offer a stepping stone to further success.

For those interested in broadening their career options, consider interdisciplinary fields. For example, earning an online environmental engineering degree science and engineering mixes technical computer skills with a focus on sustainable solutions. This dual expertise is increasingly valuable in the job market.

Wondering about specialized career paths? Learn more about what can you get with an environmental science degree. Coupling environmental science with computer science can lead to roles in data analysis, environmental monitoring, and more.

Best Scientists Citing Janyce Wiebe

Trending Scientists