World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
44
Citations
17497
World Ranking
7371
National Ranking
439

Karen Sparck Jones 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 Karen Sparck Jones 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: 164 publications — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Karen Sparck Jones 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 Karen Sparck Jones 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.

Overview

Karen Sparck Jones is affiliated with the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom and specializes in the field of Computer Science. Their research primarily focuses on Artificial Intelligence, with additional contributions to Information Systems, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, and Literature and Literary Theory.

The scientist's work encompasses a variety of main topics, including:

  • Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Topic Modeling
  • Speech and dialogue systems
  • Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge

Among recent papers authored by Karen Sparck Jones are:

  • A probabilistic model of information and retrieval: development and status, 2021, CL Technical Reports
  • Automatic summarising: a review and discussion of the state of the art, 2021, CL Technical Reports
  • Discourse modelling for automatic summarising, 2021, CL Technical Reports

Co-authors frequently collaborating with Karen Sparck Jones include:

  • G.J.F. Jones
  • Jonathan Foote
  • Sydney Young
  • S. Young
  • Branimir Boguraev

The scientist has also contributed to book publications under CL Technical Reports, including:

  • Compound noun interpretation problems, 2021
  • User models and expert systems, 2021
  • Architecture problems in the construction of expert systems for document retrieval, 2021
  • Three papers on parsing, 2021

Karen Sparck Jones regularly publishes in venues such as CL Technical Reports, with occasional publications in Scientific Repository (Petra Christian University) and Latino Studies.

Best Publications

  • A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • A probabilistic model of information retrieval: development and comparative experiments

    K. Sparck Jones;S. Walker;S. E. Robertson;S. E. Robertson

  • Readings in information retrieval

    Karen Sparck Jones;Peter Willett

  • Evaluating Natural Language Processing Systems: An Analysis and Review

    Karen Sparck Jones;Julia R. Galliers

  • Key concepts

    Karen Sparck Jones;Peter Willett

  • Automatic summarising: The state of the art

    Karen Spärck Jones

  • Natural language processing for information retrieval

    David D. Lewis;Karen Spärck Jones

  • Information Retrieval Experiment

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • Report on the need for and provision of an 'ideal' information retrieval test collection

    Karen Sparck Jones;C. J. Van Rijsbergen

  • Automatic keyword classification for information retrieval

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • Index term weighting

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • Automatic content-based retrieval of broadcast news

    M. G. Brown;J. T. Foote;G. J. F. Jones;K. Sparck Jones

  • Natural language interfaces to databases

    Ann A. Copestake;Karen Sparck Jones

  • Synonymy and Semantic Classification

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • Retrieving spoken documents by combining multiple index sources

    G. J. F. Jones;J. T. Foote;K. Spärck Jones;S. J. Young

  • IDF term weighting and IR research lessons

    Karen Spärck Jones

  • Natural Language Processing: A Historical Review

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • Automatic summarising: factors and directions

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • Automatic Search Term variant Generation

    Unknown

  • Open-vocabulary speech indexing for voice and video mail retrieval

    M. G. Brown;J. T. Foote;G. J. F. Jones;K. Spärck Jones

  • What is the Role of NLP in Text Retrieval

    Karen Sparck Jones

  • Relevance weighting of search terms

    Stephen E. Robertson;Karen Sparck Jones

Frequent Co-Authors

Philip C. Woodland
Philip C. Woodland University of Cambridge
Stephen Robertson
Stephen Robertson University College London
Peter Willett
Peter Willett University of Sheffield
Ann Copestake
Ann Copestake University of Cambridge
Roger M. Needham
Roger M. Needham Microsoft (United States)
Steve Young
Steve Young University of Cambridge
Ellen M. Voorhees
Ellen M. Voorhees National Institute of Standards and Technology
Peter Ingwersen
Peter Ingwersen University of Copenhagen
Norbert Fuhr
Norbert Fuhr University of Duisburg-Essen
Stephen Pulman
Stephen Pulman University of Oxford

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

Choosing to study Computer Science in the USA can also open doors to a variety of related fields. Many students opt for interdisciplinary pathways that complement their technical skills and broaden career opportunities.

For those interested in sustainability and environmental technology, pursuing the cheapest online environmental science degree is a smart and affordable option. Students looking to apply mathematics and computer science principles in physics can consider enrolling in an online bachelor's degree in physics.

Engineering remains a popular choice for tech-minded individuals. Earning the cheapest online mechanical engineering degree can lead to careers in product design, robotics, and automation.

Lastly, the tech industry’s explosive growth has made data science an in-demand career. Find a pathway towards this field by exploring a data scientist degree that fits your interests and budget.

Best Scientists Citing Karen Sparck Jones

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles