World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
51
Citations
12098
World Ranking
5284
National Ranking
12

Magne Jørgensen 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 Magne Jørgensen 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: 147 publications — 26th percentile

26% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Magne Jørgensen 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 Magne Jørgensen 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: 51 D-Index — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Magne Jørgensen is affiliated with Simula Research Laboratory in Norway and has a research focus spanning various aspects of computer science and business management. Their work integrates software engineering practices with management information systems and operations research methodologies.

Their recent publications illustrate a focus on software development effort estimation, project cost evaluation, and benefits realization in IT projects. Notable papers include:

  • "When should we (not) use the mean magnitude of relative error (MMRE) as an error measure in software development effort estimation?" (2021, Information and Software Technology)
  • "Evaluation of Probabilistic Project Cost Estimates" (2021, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management)
  • "Benefits management in software development: A systematic review of empirical studies" (2021, IET Software)
  • "Relations Between Effort Estimates, Skill Indicators, and Measured Programming Skill" (2020, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering)
  • "Realising benefits in public IT projects: A multiple case study" (2022, IET Software)

Jørgensen's work has been published frequently in these venues:

  • Information and Software Technology
  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • IET Software
  • Journal of Systems and Software

The scientist collaborates with several frequent co-authors, reflecting interdisciplinary work and collaborative research dynamics. These co-authors include:

  • Torleif Halkjelsvik
  • Knut Kjetil Holgeid
  • Gro Holst Volden
  • Jefferson Seide Molléri
  • Casper Lassenius

The main fields of study for Jørgensen encompass:

  • Computer Science
  • Business, Management and Accounting

Within these broader fields, subfields of focus include:

  • Information Systems
  • Management Information Systems
  • Software
  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Strategy and Management

The research topics prominently covered by Jørgensen are:

  • Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Software Engineering Research
  • Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
  • Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Construction Project Management and Performance
  • Information Technology Governance and Strategy
  • Open Source Software Innovations

Best Publications

  • A Systematic Review of Software Development Cost Estimation Studies

    M. Jorgensen;M. Shepperd

  • Evidence-based software engineering

    Barbara A. Kitchenham;Tore Dyba;Magne Jorgensen

  • A review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort

    M. JøRgensen

  • Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners

    T. Dyba;B.A. Kitchenham;M. Jorgensen

  • The Future of Empirical Methods in Software Engineering Research

    D.I.K. Sjoberg;T. Dyba;M. Jorgensen

  • A review of software surveys on software effort estimation

    K. Molokken;M. Jorgensen

  • Experience with the accuracy of software maintenance task effort prediction models

    M. Jorgensen

  • How large are software cost overruns? A review of the 1994 CHAOS report

    Magne Jørgensen;Kjetil Moløkken-Østvold

  • Conducting realistic experiments in software engineering

    D.I.K. Sjoberg;B. Anda;E. Arisholm;T. Dyba

  • Forecasting of software development work effort: Evidence on expert judgement and formal models

    Magne Jørgensen

  • Estimating Software Development Effort Based on Use Cases-Experiences from Industry

    Bente Anda;Hege Dreiem;Dag I. K. Sjøberg;Dag I. K. Sjøberg;Magne Jørgensen;Magne Jørgensen

  • When 90% confidence intervals are 50% certain: on the credibility of credible intervals

    Karl Halvor Teigen;Magne JØrgensen

  • Practical guidelines for expert-judgment-based software effort estimation

    M. Jorgensen

  • Software Development Effort Estimation: Formal Models or Expert Judgment?

    M. Jorgensen;B. Boehm;S. Rifkin

  • The impact of customer expectation on software development effort estimates

    Magne Jørgensen;Dag I.K. Sjøberg

  • A comparison of software project overruns - flexible versus sequential development models

    K. Molokken-Ostvold;M. Jorgensen

  • Better sure than safe? Over-confidence in judgement based software development effort prediction intervals

    Magne JøRgensen;Karl Halvor Teigen;Kjetil MoløKken

  • Reasons for software effort estimation error: impact of respondent role, information collection approach, and data analysis method

    M. Jorgensen;K. Molokken-Ostvold

  • Software effort estimation by analogy and regression toward the mean

    Magne Jørgensen;Ulf Indahl;Dag Sjøberg

  • Top-down and bottom-up expert estimation of software development effort

    Magne Jørgensen

  • Impact of effort estimates on software project work

    Magne Jørgensen;Dag I.K Sjøberg

Frequent Co-Authors

Dag I. K. Sjøberg
Dag I. K. Sjøberg University of Oslo
Barbara Kitchenham
Barbara Kitchenham Keele University
Martin Shepperd
Martin Shepperd Brunel University London
Karl Halvor Teigen
Karl Halvor Teigen University of Oslo
Barry Boehm
Barry Boehm University of Southern California
Casper Lassenius
Casper Lassenius Aalto University
Mika V. Mäntylä
Mika V. Mäntylä University of Helsinki
John Krogstie
John Krogstie Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Marcela Genero
Marcela Genero University of Castilla-La Mancha

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

Pursuing a degree in Computer Science doesn’t have to follow a traditional path. There are many flexible and affordable options available to meet diverse needs and backgrounds. For those looking to build a strong foundation, an associate degree online can provide essential skills and open doors to entry-level tech roles.

Budget is a major factor for many students. Luckily, there are cheap online colleges offering accredited programs without enormous tuition costs. These programs make education more accessible for students nationwide.

Admissions requirements can be a hurdle for some applicants, but alternatives exist. If your academic history isn’t perfect, consider online graduate programs that accept 2.0 gpa. These programs value work experience and potential, rather than just past grades.

Computer Science graduates have a broad spectrum of career options, often overlapping with other domains. For example, data analysis, software engineering, and technology roles are becoming increasingly important in sectors like sustainability and conservation. Explore where your studies might lead by looking at jobs for environmental science majors. This can help inspire diverse and meaningful career pathways with your technical expertise.

Best Scientists Citing Magne Jørgensen

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles