World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Jonathan I. Maletic

Jonathan I. Maletic

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
44
Citations
9504
World Ranking
7497
National Ranking
3263

Jonathan I. Maletic 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 Jonathan I. Maletic 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: 184 publications — 40th percentile

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

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

Jonathan I. Maletic 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 Jonathan I. Maletic 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: 44 D-Index — 48th percentile

48% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2006 - ACM Senior Member

Overview

Jonathan I. Maletic is affiliated with Kent State University in the United States. Their research focuses predominantly within the field of Computer Science, contributing to subfields such as Information Systems, Human-Computer Interaction, and Artificial Intelligence, as well as addressing topics related to Computer Networks and Communications and Computer Science Applications.

The scientist's main topics of work include Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology, Software Engineering Techniques and Practices, and Software Engineering Research. Additional areas covered in their publications are Usability and User Interface Design, Natural Language Processing Techniques, Software System Performance and Reliability, and Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies.

Jonathan I. Maletic has published extensively in several venues, with frequent contributions found in:

  • ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Empirical Software Engineering
  • IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Their recent papers include:

  • "Determining Differences in Reading Behavior Between Experts and Novices by Investigating Eye Movement on Source Code Constructs During a Bug Fixing Task" (2021) presented at the ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications
  • "Studying Developer Eye Movements to Measure Cognitive Workload and Visual Effort for Expertise Assessment" (2023) published in the Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • "Deja Vu: semantics-aware recording and replay of high-speed eye tracking and interaction data to support cognitive studies of software engineering tasks-methodology and analyses" (2022) published in Empirical Software Engineering
  • "EMIP Toolkit: A Python Library for Customized Post-processing of the Eye Movements in Programming Dataset" (2021) presented at the ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications
  • "A Fine-grained Assessment on Novice Programmers' Gaze Patterns on Pseudocode Problems" (2020) published at the ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Jonathan I. Maletic include:

  • Bonita Sharif
  • Heather M. Guarnera
  • Joshua A.C. Behler
  • Cole S. Peterson
  • Salwa Aljehane

In 2006, Jonathan I. Maletic was recognized as an ACM Senior Member, acknowledging contributions within the computing community.

Best Publications

  • Recovering documentation-to-source-code traceability links using latent semantic indexing

    Andrian Marcus;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • An information retrieval approach to concept location in source code

    A. Marcus;A. Sergeyev;V. Rajlich;J.I. Maletic

  • A survey and taxonomy of approaches for mining software repositories in the context of software evolution

    Huzefa Kagdi;Michael L. Collard;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • Identification of high-level concept clones in source code

    A. Marcus;J.I. Maletic

  • Data Cleansing: Beyond Integrity Analysis 1

    Jonathan I. Maletic;Andrian Marcus

  • Supporting program comprehension using semantic and structural information

    Jonathan I. Maletic;Andrian Marcus

  • 3D representations for software visualization

    Andrian Marcus;Louis Feng;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • A task oriented view of software visualization

    J.I. Maletic;A. Marcus;M.L. Collard

  • What's a Typical Commit? A Characterization of Open Source Software Repositories

    A. Alali;H. Kagdi;J.I. Maletic

  • Assessing the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams via Eye Tracking

    S. Yusuf;H. Kagdi;J.I. Maletic

  • An XML-based lightweight C++ fact extractor

    M.L. Collard;H.H. Kagdi;J.I. Maletic

  • Source code files as structured documents

    J.I. Maletic;M.L. Collard;A. Marcus

  • Recovery of traceability links between software documentation and source code

    Andrian Marcus;Jonathan I. Maletic;Andrey Sergeyev

  • An eye-tracking study on the role of scan time in finding source code defects

    Bonita Sharif;Michael Falcone;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • An Eye Tracking Study on camelCase and under_score Identifier Styles

    Bonita Sharif;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • The impact of identifier style on effort and comprehension

    Dave Binkley;Marcia Davis;Dawn Lawrie;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • srcML: An Infrastructure for the Exploration, Analysis, and Manipulation of Source Code: A Tool Demonstration

    Michael L. Collard;Michael John Decker;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • Using latent semantic analysis to identify similarities in source code to support program understanding

    J.I. Maletic;A. Marcus

  • Lightweight Transformation and Fact Extraction with the srcML Toolkit

    Michael L. Collard;Michael J. Decker;Jonathan I. Maletic

  • Supporting source code difference analysis

    J.I. Maletic;M.L. Collard

  • Mining software repositories for traceability links

    H. Kagdi;J.I. Maletic;B. Sharif

Frequent Co-Authors

Andrian Marcus
Andrian Marcus The University of Texas at Dallas
Robert G. Reynolds
Robert G. Reynolds Wayne State University
Jane Huffman Hayes
Jane Huffman Hayes University of Kentucky
Jane Cleland-Huang
Jane Cleland-Huang University of Notre Dame
Giuliano Antoniol
Giuliano Antoniol Polytechnique Montréal
Massimiliano Di Penta
Massimiliano Di Penta University of Sannio
Michele Lanza
Michele Lanza Universita della Svizzera Italiana
Stéphane Ducasse
Stéphane Ducasse University of Lille
Tien N. Nguyen
Tien N. Nguyen The University of Texas at Dallas
Denys Poshyvanyk
Denys Poshyvanyk William & Mary

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

Considering a future in Computer Science opens the door to a variety of educational options and career paths. For students seeking a fast entry into the tech industry, exploring associates degree programs can be a smart start. These programs typically take two years or less to complete and can lead to entry-level jobs or continued study.

Many learners also look for flexible and affordable options. If you’re interested in leadership or education roles in computer science, researching affordable edd programs online is worth considering. For a broader search, review the best online degree programs to find quality institutions with national accreditation.

Those passionate about interactive technology or entertainment may want to investigate video game design programs. Each of these pathways provides unique skills and opportunities in the expanding digital world.

Best Scientists Citing Jonathan I. Maletic

Trending Scientists