World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Mathematics

D-Index
31
Citations
4101
World Ranking
3337
National Ranking
1309

John E. Mitchell publication distribution in Mathematics in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Mathematics in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where John E. Mitchell sits on this spectrum.

42–46 publications: 3 scientists 47–51 publications: 5 scientists 52–56 publications: 7 scientists 57–61 publications: 20 scientists 62–66 publications: 14 scientists 67–71 publications: 25 scientists 72–76 publications: 19 scientists 77–81 publications: 35 scientists 82–86 publications: 50 scientists 87–91 publications: 60 scientists 92–96 publications: 86 scientists 97–101 publications: 84 scientists 102–106 publications: 83 scientists 107–111 publications: 90 scientists 112–116 publications: 99 scientists 117–121 publications: 90 scientists 122–126 publications: 91 scientists 127–131 publications: 109 scientists 132–136 publications: 110 scientists 137–141 publications: 98 scientists 142–146 publications: 112 scientists 147–151 publications: 102 scientists 152–156 publications: 88 scientists 157–161 publications: 106 scientists 162–166 publications: 83 scientists 167–171 publications: 102 scientists 172–176 publications: 77 scientists 177–181 publications: 81 scientists 182–186 publications: 78 scientists 187–191 publications: 71 scientists 192–196 publications: 92 scientists 197–201 publications: 64 scientists 202–206 publications: 69 scientists 207–211 publications: 64 scientists 212–216 publications: 62 scientists 217–221 publications: 58 scientists 222–226 publications: 53 scientists 227–231 publications: 50 scientists 232–236 publications: 46 scientists 237–241 publications: 46 scientists 242–246 publications: 46 scientists 247–251 publications: 43 scientists 252–256 publications: 29 scientists 257–261 publications: 45 scientists 262–266 publications: 30 scientists 267–271 publications: 33 scientists 272–276 publications: 34 scientists 277–281 publications: 30 scientists 282–286 publications: 31 scientists 287–291 publications: 21 scientists 292–296 publications: 34 scientists 297–301 publications: 26 scientists 302–306 publications: 10 scientists 307–311 publications: 17 scientists 312–316 publications: 23 scientists 317–321 publications: 13 scientists 322–326 publications: 16 scientists 327–331 publications: 26 scientists 332–336 publications: 13 scientists 337–341 publications: 13 scientists 342–346 publications: 16 scientists 347–351 publications: 17 scientists 352–356 publications: 12 scientists 357–361 publications: 18 scientists 362–366 publications: 18 scientists 367–371 publications: 9 scientists 372–376 publications: 11 scientists 377–381 publications: 8 scientists 382–386 publications: 8 scientists 387–391 publications: 9 scientists 392–396 publications: 9 scientists 397–401 publications: 8 scientists 402–406 publications: 11 scientists 407–411 publications: 6 scientists 412–416 publications: 6 scientists 417–421 publications: 9 scientists 422–426 publications: 8 scientists 427–431 publications: 5 scientists 432–436 publications: 8 scientists 437–441 publications: 8 scientists 442–446 publications: 4 scientists 447–451 publications: 4 scientists 452–456 publications: 4 scientists 457–461 publications: 2 scientists 462–466 publications: 2 scientists 467–471 publications: 4 scientists 472–476 publications: 3 scientists 477–481 publications: 3 scientists 482–486 publications: 6 scientists 487–491 publications: 3 scientists 492–496 publications: 5 scientists 497–501 publications: 5 scientists 502–506 publications: 1 scientists 507–511 publications: 6 scientists 512–516 publications: 4 scientists 517–521 publications: 1 scientists 522–526 publications: 3 scientists 527–531 publications: 1 scientists 532–536 publications: 4 scientists 537+ publications: 100 scientists
42 publications 537+

This scientist: 104 publications — 13th percentile

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

The last bar groups every scientist with 537 publications or more.

John E. Mitchell D-index placement in Mathematics in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Mathematics scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where John E. Mitchell sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 174 scientists 31 D-Index: 151 scientists 32 D-Index: 174 scientists 33 D-Index: 117 scientists 34 D-Index: 136 scientists 35 D-Index: 127 scientists 36 D-Index: 145 scientists 37 D-Index: 153 scientists 38 D-Index: 150 scientists 39 D-Index: 150 scientists 40 D-Index: 138 scientists 41 D-Index: 136 scientists 42 D-Index: 93 scientists 43 D-Index: 108 scientists 44 D-Index: 115 scientists 45 D-Index: 112 scientists 46 D-Index: 103 scientists 47 D-Index: 75 scientists 48 D-Index: 59 scientists 49 D-Index: 67 scientists 50 D-Index: 60 scientists 51 D-Index: 57 scientists 52 D-Index: 59 scientists 53 D-Index: 62 scientists 54 D-Index: 60 scientists 55 D-Index: 50 scientists 56 D-Index: 42 scientists 57 D-Index: 54 scientists 58 D-Index: 50 scientists 59 D-Index: 42 scientists 60 D-Index: 41 scientists 61 D-Index: 35 scientists 62 D-Index: 40 scientists 63 D-Index: 21 scientists 64 D-Index: 31 scientists 65 D-Index: 27 scientists 66 D-Index: 29 scientists 67 D-Index: 19 scientists 68 D-Index: 25 scientists 69 D-Index: 17 scientists 70 D-Index: 18 scientists 71 D-Index: 12 scientists 72 D-Index: 14 scientists 73 D-Index: 13 scientists 74 D-Index: 18 scientists 75 D-Index: 9 scientists 76 D-Index: 11 scientists 77 D-Index: 10 scientists 78 D-Index: 9 scientists 79 D-Index: 16 scientists 80 D-Index: 12 scientists 81 D-Index: 10 scientists 82 D-Index: 5 scientists 83 D-Index: 5 scientists 84 D-Index: 13 scientists 85 D-Index: 6 scientists 86+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 86+

This scientist: 31 D-Index — 9th percentile

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

The last bar groups every scientist with 86 D-Index or more.

Overview

John E. Mitchell is affiliated with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the United States. Their research spans across the fields of Engineering and Computer Science, with a particular focus on several subfields including Sociology and Political Science, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Automotive Engineering, Building and Construction, and Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering.

Mitchell's recent publications reflect engagement with diverse topics related to transportation, logistics, network analysis, and supply chain resilience. Notable papers include:

  • Optimizing driver menus under stochastic selection behavior for ridesharing and crowdsourced delivery (2021), published in Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review
  • Towards the development of quantitative resilience indices for Multi-Echelon Assembly Supply Chains (2020), published in Omega
  • Location of urban micro-consolidation centers to reduce the social cost of last-mile deliveries of cargo: A heuristic approach (2021), published in Networks
  • Interdicting restructuring networks with applications in illicit trafficking (2022), published in European Journal of Operational Research
  • Multi-period max flow network interdiction with restructuring for disrupting domestic sex trafficking networks (2022), published in Annals of Operations Research

Research topics covered by their work frequently explore:

  • Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Urban and Freight Transport Logistics
  • Sparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
  • Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
  • Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
  • Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Mitchell include Thomas C. Sharkey, Daniel Kosmas, April Sagan, Hannah Horner, and Jennifer A. Pazour.

Their contributions have been published primarily in venues such as Networks, Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review, Omega, Annals of Operations Research, and European Journal of Operational Research.

Best Publications

  • Restoration of Services in Interdependent Infrastructure Systems: A Network Flows Approach

    E.E. Lee;J.E. Mitchell;W.A. Wallace

  • An improved branch and bound algorithm for mixed integer nonlinear programs

    Brian Borchers;John E. Mitchell

  • Restoring infrastructure systems: An integrated network design and scheduling (INDS) problem

    Sarah G. Nurre;Burak Cavdaroglu;John E. Mitchell;Thomas C. Sharkey

  • Integrating restoration and scheduling decisions for disrupted interdependent infrastructure systems

    Burak Cavdaroglu;Erik Hammel;John E. Mitchell;Thomas C. Sharkey

  • On the Global Solution of Linear Programs with Linear Complementarity Constraints

    Jing Hu;John E. Mitchell;Jong-Shi Pang;Kristin P. Bennett

  • Interdependent network restoration: On the value of information-sharing

    Thomas C. Sharkey;Burak Çavdaroğlu;Huy Nguyen;Jonathan Holman

  • p-Hub approach for the optimal park-and-ride facility location problem

    Felipe Aros-Vera;Vladimir Marianov;John E. Mitchell

  • An interdependent layered network model for a resilient supply chain

    Jing Gong;John E. Mitchell;Ananth Krishnamurthy;William A. Wallace

  • Analyzing and exploiting the structure of the constraints in the ILP approach to the scheduling problem

    S. Chaudhuri;R.A. Walker;J.E. Mitchell

  • Solving Linear Ordering Problems with a Combined Interior Point/Simplex Cutting Plane Algorithm

    John E. Mitchell;Brian Borchers

  • Computational Experience with an Interior Point Cutting Plane Algorithm

    John E. Mitchell

  • Solving combinatorial optimization problems using Karmakar's algorithm

    John E. Mitchell;Michael J. Todd

  • Solving Real-World Linear Ordering Problems Using a Primal-Dual Interior Point Cutting Plane Method

    John E. Mitchell;Brian Borchers

  • Identification and Classification of Restoration Interdependencies in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy

    Thomas C. Sharkey;Sarah G. Nurre;Huy Nguyen;Joe H. Chow

  • Proximity Queries Between Convex Objects: An Interior Point Approach for Implicit Surfaces

    N. Chakraborty;Jufeng Peng;S. Akella;J.E. Mitchell

  • On linear programs with linear complementarity constraints

    Jing Hu;John E. Mitchell;Jong-Shi Pang;Bin Yu

  • Nonlinear effects of teaching and consulting on academic research productivity

    John E. Mitchell;Douglas S. Rebne

  • Branch-and-price-and-cut on the clique partitioning problem with minimum clique size requirement

    Xiaoyun Ji;John E. Mitchell

  • On convex quadratic programs with linear complementarity constraints

    Lijie Bai;John E. Mitchell;Jong-Shi Pang

  • Polynomial interior point cutting plane methods

    John E. Mitchell

  • Complementarity Formulations of ' 0 -norm Optimization Problems

    Mingbin Feng;John E. Mitchell;Jong-Shi Pang;Xin Shen

Frequent Co-Authors

Jong-Shi Pang
Jong-Shi Pang University of Southern California
William A. Wallace
William A. Wallace Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Michael J. Todd
Michael J. Todd Cornell University
José Holguín-Veras
José Holguín-Veras Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Nilanjan Chakraborty
Nilanjan Chakraborty Stony Brook University
Malik Magdon-Ismail
Malik Magdon-Ismail Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
James A. Hendler
James A. Hendler Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Panos M. Pardalos
Panos M. Pardalos University of Florida
Boleslaw K. Szymanski
Boleslaw K. Szymanski Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Joe H. Chow
Joe H. Chow Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

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

For students studying Mathematics in the USA, exploring related online degrees can open up diverse career opportunities. Programs like the 1 year dba program online offer a fast track to advanced business administration skills, complementing analytical math expertise.

Those interested in finance might consider the cheapest masters in finance. This affordable pathway equips students with financial modeling and quantitative analysis tools essential for careers in banking, investment, and risk management.

For aspiring business leaders, the fastest online mba programs provide an accelerated curriculum that builds managerial and strategic thinking capabilities, often blending mathematical problem-solving with leadership skills.

Additionally, a masters in digital marketing can appeal to math graduates interested in data-driven marketing strategies. This degree emphasizes analytics and technology to optimize marketing campaigns and business growth.

Combining mathematical knowledge with these specialized online degrees can lead to versatile career pathways across industries, making further education a valuable investment.

Best Scientists Citing John E. Mitchell

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles