World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Khaled El Emam

Khaled El Emam

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Computer Science 59 3472 3376 136 128 178 11970

Khaled El Emam publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Khaled El Emam between 1992 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Khaled El Emam published across 34 years, from 1992 to 2025, averaging 7.6 papers a year. Output peaked at 40 publications in 2013. 28 of the 258 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30 40
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1992 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 40. Peak 40 publications in 2013. 1992: 1 publication 1993: 2 publications 1994: 0 publications 1995: 5 publications 1996: 6 publications 1997: 8 publications 1998: 8 publications 1999: 4 publications 2000: 10 publications 2001: 11 publications 2002: 2 publications 2003: 0 publications 2004: 3 publications 2005: 14 publications 2006: 3 publications 2007: 4 publications 2008: 5 publications 2009: 11 publications 2010: 8 publications 2011: 9 publications 2012: 5 publications 2013: 40 publications 2014: 6 publications 2015: 15 publications 2016: 4 publications 2017: 3 publications 2018: 0 publications 2019: 1 publication 2020: 7 publications 2021: 9 publications 2022: 11 publications 2023: 15 publications 2024: 10 publications 2025: 18 publications
1992 2025

258 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Khaled El Emam: publications per year, 1992 to 2025
Year Publications
1992 1
1993 2
1994 0
1995 5
1996 6
1997 8
1998 8
1999 4
2000 10
2001 11
2002 2
2003 0
2004 3
2005 14
2006 3
2007 4
2008 5
2009 11
2010 8
2011 9
2012 5
2013 40
2014 6
2015 15
2016 4
2017 3
2018 0
2019 1
2020 7
2021 9
2022 11
2023 15
2024 10
2025 18
Total 258
Download as CSV

Khaled El Emam 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 Khaled El Emam sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 97 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 32–41 to 991+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 609. Most scientists, 609, have 142–151 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 172–181 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
32–41 publications 991+

This scientist: 178 publications — 38th percentile

38% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Computer Science scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 14,188 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
32–41 7
42–51 22
52–61 82
62–71 134
72–81 249
82–91 324
92–101 421
102–111 420
112–121 497
122–131 544
132–141 555
142–151 609
152–161 559
162–171 534
172–181 556 178
182–191 583
192–201 519
202–211 508
212–221 490
222–231 437
232–241 423
242–251 408
252–261 377
262–271 301
272–281 335
282–291 320
292–301 293
302–311 250
312–321 238
322–331 206
332–341 209
342–351 208
352–361 162
362–371 176
372–381 127
382–391 158
392–401 128
402–411 104
412–421 94
422–431 99
432–441 83
442–451 108
452–461 73
462–471 77
472–481 69
482–491 84
492–501 62
502–511 54
512–521 57
522–531 51
532–541 51
542–551 32
552–561 38
562–571 28
572–581 43
582–591 33
592–601 41
602–611 32
612–621 28
622–631 25
632–641 27
642–651 17
652–661 20
662–671 17
672–681 15
682–691 14
692–701 21
702–711 13
712–721 12
722–731 19
732–741 14
742–751 12
752–761 10
762–771 10
772–781 11
782–791 10
792–801 11
802–811 8
812–821 8
822–831 7
832–841 11
842–851 10
852–861 5
862–871 9
872–881 4
882–891 6
892–901 3
902–911 6
912–921 3
922–931 2
932–941 2
942–951 2
952–961 3
962–971 3
972–981 3
982–990 5
991+ 100
Download as CSV

Khaled El Emam 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 Khaled El Emam sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 52 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 131+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 990. Most scientists, 990, have 36–37 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 58–59 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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
30–31 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 59 D-Index — 77th percentile

77% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Computer Science scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 14,188 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 879
32–33 983
34–35 918
36–37 990
38–39 968
40–41 907
42–43 821
44–45 763
46–47 689
48–49 543
50–51 543
52–53 518
54–55 500
56–57 458
58–59 400 59
60–61 337
62–63 308
64–65 292
66–67 249
68–69 213
70–71 192
72–73 189
74–75 165
76–77 139
78–79 119
80–81 121
82–83 113
84–85 88
86–87 87
88–89 75
90–91 69
92–93 57
94–95 46
96–97 38
98–99 34
100–101 36
102–103 27
104–105 37
106–107 18
108–109 31
110–111 19
112–113 16
114–115 12
116–117 20
118–119 15
120–121 5
122–123 20
124–125 8
126–127 5
128–129 7
130 3
131+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Khaled El Emam is affiliated with the University of Ottawa in Canada. Their research spans both Medicine and Computer Science, with a substantive focus on Artificial Intelligence, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability, and Health Information Management.

The scientist has contributed extensively to the study of Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data, Machine Learning in Healthcare, Sex and Gender in Healthcare, Ethics in Clinical Research, Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology, and Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education.

Their recent papers include:

  • "Synthetic data as an enabler for machine learning applications in medicine" (2022, iScience)
  • "Can synthetic data be a proxy for real clinical trial data? A validation study" (2021, BMJ Open)
  • "Evaluating Identity Disclosure Risk in Fully Synthetic Health Data: Model Development and Validation" (2020, Journal of Medical Internet Research)
  • "Seven Ways to Evaluate the Utility of Synthetic Data" (2020, IEEE Security & Privacy)
  • "Utility Metrics for Evaluating Synthetic Health Data Generation Methods: Validation Study" (2022, JMIR Medical Informatics)

Their frequent co-authors include Lucy Mosquera, Louise Pilote, Zahra Azizi, Valeria Raparelli, and Colleen M. Norris.

Their studies have been published predominantly in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, BMJ Open, Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Value in Health, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Best Publications

  • The prediction of faulty classes using object-oriented design metrics

    Khaled El Emam;Walcelio Melo;Javam C. Machado

  • Spice: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination

    Khaled El Emam;Walcelio Melo;Jean-Normand Drouin

  • A Systematic Review of Re-Identification Attacks on Health Data

    Khaled El Emam;Elizabeth Jonker;Luk Arbuckle;Bradley Malin

  • The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Metrics

    Unknown

  • Protecting privacy using k-anonymity.

    Khaled El Emam;Khaled El Emam;Fida Kamal Dankar

  • An assessment and comparison of common software cost estimation modeling techniques

    L.C. Briand;K. El Emam;D. Surmann;I. Wieczorek

  • A Replicated Survey of IT Software Project Failures

    Unknown

  • A Globally Optimal k-Anonymity Method for the De-Identification of Health Data

    Khaled El Emam;Khaled El Emam;Fida Kamal Dankar;Romeo Issa;Elizabeth Jonker

  • On the application of measurement theory in software engineering

    Lionel C. Briand;Khaled El Emam;Sandro Morasca

  • Who’s Using PDAs? Estimates of PDA Use by Health Care Providers: A Systematic Review of Surveys

    Chantelle Garritty;Khaled El Emam

  • Software Cost Estimation with Incomplete Data

    Unknown

  • Anonymising and sharing individual patient data.

    Khaled El Emam;Khaled El Emam;Sam Rodgers;Bradley Malin

  • "Not all my friends need to know": a qualitative study of teenage patients, privacy, and social media.

    Maja van der Velden;Khaled El Emam;Khaled El Emam

  • COBRA: a hybrid method for software cost estimation, benchmarking, and risk assessment

    L.C. Briand;K. El Emam;F. Bomarius

  • A comprehensive evaluation of capture-recapture models for estimating software defect content

    L.C. Briand;K. El Emam;B.G. Freimut;O. Laitenberger

  • Comparing case-based reasoning classifiers for predicting high risk software components

    Khaled El Emam;Saida Benlarbi;Nishith Goel;Shesh N. Rai

  • A field study of requirements engineering practices in information systems development

    Unknown

  • An Investigation into the Functional Form of the Size-Defect Relationship for Software Modules

    A.G. Koru;Dongsong Zhang;K. El Emam;Hongfang Liu

  • Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software requirements analysis process capability

    K. El Emam;A. Birk

  • An experimental comparison of reading techniques for defect detection in UML design documents

    Oliver Laitenberger;Colin Atkinson;Maud Schlich;Khaled El Emam

  • Theoretical and Empirical Validation of Software Product Measures

    Lionel C. Briand;Khaled El Emam;Sandro Morasca

  • Biomedical data privacy: problems, perspectives, and recent advances

    Bradley A Malin;Khaled El Emam;Khaled El Emam;Christine M O'Keefe

  • Anonymizing Health Data: Case Studies and Methods to Get You Started

    Khaled El Emam;Luk Arbuckle

  • Correction: a systematic review of re-identification attacks on health data.

    Khaled El Emam;Elizabeth Jonker;Luk Arbuckle;Bradley Malin

Frequent Co-Authors

Bradley A. Malin
Bradley A. Malin Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Louise Pilote
Louise Pilote McGill University
Daniel Amyot
Daniel Amyot University of Ottawa
Murat Kantarcioglu
Murat Kantarcioglu The University of Texas at Dallas
Stan Matwin
Stan Matwin Dalhousie University
Bartha Maria Knoppers
Bartha Maria Knoppers McGill University Health Centre
Lionel C. Briand
Lionel C. Briand University of Ottawa
Sandro Morasca
Sandro Morasca University of Insubria
Marni Brownell
Marni Brownell University of Manitoba
David Henry
David Henry Bond University

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 Computer Science in the USA opens the door to a variety of online degree options. Many students value flexibility, which is why shortest masters degree programs are gaining popularity. These allow you to advance your education and career quickly, often completing your studies in just one year.

If you’re planning for a long-term career, consider programs that lead to the most in demand masters degrees. Specializations like data science, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity are highly valued by employers across various industries.

For those beginning their studies, an online associate degree can be a fast and affordable entry point. Opting for this route may help you gain foundational knowledge while keeping education costs manageable.

Finally, it’s important to balance cost and quality. You can find accredited and affordable online courses that offer a solid return on investment. With so many online pathways, you can choose a program that fits your budget and career ambitions.

Best Scientists Citing Khaled El Emam

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles