World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
41
Citations
7578
World Ranking
8807
National Ranking
3764

John Hatcliff 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 John Hatcliff 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: 170 publications — 35th percentile

35% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

John Hatcliff 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 John Hatcliff 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.

Overview

John Hatcliff is affiliated with Kansas State University in the United States. Their research focuses primarily on computer science, with a significant body of work spanning 56 publications.

The scientist's subfields of study include:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Software
  • Computational Theory and Mathematics
  • Hardware and Architecture
  • Computer Networks and Communications

Main topics covered in their research are:

  • Formal Methods in Verification
  • Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Security and Verification in Computing
  • Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Model-Driven Software Engineering Techniques

John Hatcliff has contributed to recent papers including:

  • "An AADL Contract Language Supporting Integrated Model- and Code-Level Verification," 2023, ACM SIGAda Ada Letters
  • "Cyberassured Systems Engineering at Scale," 2022, IEEE Security & Privacy
  • "Model-driven development for the seL4 microkernel using the HAMR framework," 2022, Journal of Systems Architecture
  • "Specification and Verification of Timing Properties in Interoperable Medical Systems," 2022, Logical Methods in Computer Science
  • "Awas: AADL information flow and error propagation analysis framework," 2021, Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering

Frequent co-authors in their work include:

  • Robby
  • Jason Belt
  • Danielle Stewart
  • Todd Carpenter
  • Stefan Hallerstede

John Hatcliff has published in several venues with multiple contributions to the following:

  • International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer
  • IEEE Security & Privacy
  • Journal of Systems Architecture
  • Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering
  • ACM SIGAda Ada Letters

Best Publications

  • Bandera: extracting finite-state models from Java source code

    James C. Corbett;Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff;Shawn Laubach

  • Challenges and Research Directions in Medical Cyber–Physical Systems

    Insup Lee;O. Sokolsky;Sanjian Chen;J. Hatcliff

  • Bogor: an extensible and highly-modular software model checking framework

    Robby;Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff

  • Slicing Software for Model Construction

    John Hatcliff;Matthew B. Dwyer;Hongjun Zheng

  • Cadena: an integrated development, analysis, and verification environment for component-based systems

    John Hatcliff;Xinghua Deng;Matthew B. Dwyer;Georg Jung

  • Behavioral interface specification languages

    John Hatcliff;Gary T. Leavens;K. Rustan M. Leino;Peter Müller

  • Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification

    Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff;Roby Joehanes;Shawn Laubach

  • Using the Bandera Tool Set to Model-Check Properties of Concurrent Java Software

    John Hatcliff;Matthew B. Dwyer

  • High-confidence medical device software and systems

    I. Lee;G.J. Pappas;R. Cleaveland;J. Hatcliff

  • A generic account of continuation-passing styles

    John Hatcliff;Olivier Danvy

  • A Formal Study of Slicing for Multi-threaded Programs with JVM Concurrency Primitives

    John Hatcliff;James C. Corbett;Matthew B. Dwyer;Stefan Sokolowski

  • A new foundation for control dependence and slicing for modern program structures

    Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath;Torben Amtoft;Anindya Banerjee;John Hatcliff

  • Rationale and Architecture Principles for Medical Application Platforms

    John Hatcliff;Andrew King;Insup Lee;Alasdair Macdonald

  • A Language Framework for Expressing Checkable Properties of Dynamic Software

    James C. Corbett;Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff;Robby

  • Certifiably safe software-dependent systems: challenges and directions

    John Hatcliff;Alan Wassyng;Tim Kelly;Cyrille Comar

  • Expressing checkable properties of dynamic systems: the Bandera Specification Language

    James C. Corbett;Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff;Robby

  • Extending JML for modular specification and verification of multi-threaded programs

    Edwin Rodríguez;Matthew Dwyer;Cormac Flanagan;John Hatcliff

  • Slicing concurrent Java programs using Indus and Kaveri

    Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath;John Hatcliff

  • Exploiting Object Escape and Locking Information in Partial-Order Reductions for Concurrent Object-Oriented Programs

    Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff;Robby;Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath

  • Invariant-based specification, synthesis, and verification of synchronization in concurrent programs

    Xianghua Deng;Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff;Masaaki Mizuno

  • A new foundation for control-dependence and slicing for modern program structures

    Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath;Torben Amtoft;Anindya Banerjee;Matthew B. Dwyer

  • Slicing Software for Model Construction.

    Matthew B. Dwyer;John Hatcliff

  • Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

    Hubert Garavel;John Hatcliff

Frequent Co-Authors

Matthew B. Dwyer
Matthew B. Dwyer University of Virginia
Olivier Danvy
Olivier Danvy National University of Singapore
Insup Lee
Insup Lee University of Pennsylvania
Gilles Barthe
Gilles Barthe Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy
Anindya Banerjee
Anindya Banerjee Dartmouth College
Oleg Sokolsky
Oleg Sokolsky University of Pennsylvania
Gary T. Leavens
Gary T. Leavens University of Central Florida
Aniruddha Gokhale
Aniruddha Gokhale Vanderbilt University
Mats P. E. Heimdahl
Mats P. E. Heimdahl University of Minnesota
Xinming Ou
Xinming Ou University of South Florida

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 a career in Computer Science opens doors to a wide range of online degree options. If you’re considering advanced leadership roles, emba programs can combine your technical know-how with essential business management skills, making you stand out in tech-driven organizations.

For those interested in managing information, data, or digital resources, mlis programs offer training in information science with flexible online study formats. These degrees are particularly valuable for positions in data curation or digital archiving.

Budget is often a concern for students. Navigating the landscape of affordable masters programs can help minimize costs while maximizing your career prospects. Many affordable options cater to working professionals aiming to balance education and employment.

If academic leadership or organizational change interests you, a phd in organizational leadership provides the skills needed to lead teams and organizations effectively. These online programs empower graduates to make a strategic impact in educational, technological, or corporate environments.

Best Scientists Citing John Hatcliff

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles