World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
33
Citations
4632
World Ranking
12687
National Ranking
804

Marc Roper 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 Marc Roper 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: 119 publications — 14th percentile

14% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Marc Roper 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 Marc Roper 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: 33 D-Index — 13th percentile

13% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Marc Roper is affiliated with the University of Strathclyde in the United Kingdom and conducts research at the intersection of Medicine and Computer Science. Their work spans several subfields, including Artificial Intelligence, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Software, Surgery, and Information Systems.

Their research focuses on a variety of topics:

  • Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Activity and Health
  • Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Fire Detection and Safety Systems
  • Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications

They have been published frequently in venues such as:

  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
  • Applied Sciences
  • Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
  • JMIR Perioperative Medicine

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Marc Roper include:

  • "Dynamic Prediction of Patient Outcomes in the Intensive Care Unit: A Scoping Review of the State-of-the-Art" (2023), Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
  • "The Impact of Ensemble Techniques on Software Maintenance Change Prediction: An Empirical Study" (2022), Applied Sciences
  • "Definition and Classification of Postoperative Complications After Cardiac Surgery: Pilot Delphi Study" (2022), JMIR Perioperative Medicine
  • "Predictive Data Analytics in Telecare and Telehealth: Systematic Scoping Review" (2024), Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
  • "Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Enabled Credit Scoring in Banking and Fintech: In Search of Maximum Prediction Accuracy" (2023), SSRN Electronic Journal

Marc Roper frequently collaborates with a core group of co-authors who have contributed to multiple publications together. These include:

  • Linda Lapp
  • Kimberley Kavanagh
  • Stefan Schraag
  • Matt-Mouley Bouamrane
  • Rafig Almaghairbe

Best Publications

  • Machine learning for estimation of building energy consumption and performance: a review

    Saleh Seyedzadeh;Farzad Pour Rahimian;Ivan Glesk;Marc Roper

  • Reformulating software engineering as a search problem

    J Clarke;J J Dolado;Mark Harman;R Hierons

  • Testability transformation

    M. Harman;L. Hu;R. Hierons;J. Wegener

  • Software Testing

    Marc Roper

  • Evaluating inheritance depth on the maintainability of object-oriented software

    John W. Daly;Andrew Brooks;James Miller;Marc Roper

  • Further Experiences with Scenarios and Checklists

    J. Miller;M. Wood;M. Roper

  • Comparing and combining software defect detection techniques: a replicated empirical study

    Murray Wood;Marc Roper;Andrew Brooks;James Miller

  • Investigating the viability of mental models held by novice programmers

    Linxiao Ma;John Ferguson;Marc Roper;Murray Wood

  • Multi-method research: an empirical investigation of object-oriented technology

    Murray Wood;John Daly;James Miller;Marc Roper

  • Investigating and improving the models of programming concepts held by novice programmers

    Linxiao Ma;John D. Ferguson;Marc Roper;Murray Wood

  • Object-oriented inspection in the face of delocalisation

    Alastair Dunsmore;Marc Roper;Murray Wood

  • The Java system dependence graph

    N. Walkinshaw;M. Roper;M. Wood

  • A novel software visualisation model to support software comprehension

    M.J. Pacione;M. Roper;M. Wood

  • A systematic literature review of machine learning techniques for software maintainability prediction

    Hadeel Alsolai;Hadeel Alsolai;Marc Roper

  • Statistical power and its subcomponents — missing and misunderstood concepts in empirical software engineering research

    James Miller;John W. Daly;Murray Wood;Marc Roper

  • The development and evaluation of three diverse techniques for object-oriented code inspection

    A. Dunsmore;M. Roper;M. Wood

  • Replication's role in software engineering

    Andy Brooks;Marc Roper;Murray Wood;John W. Daly

  • What's in a bug report?

    Steven Davies;Marc Roper

  • A review of awareness in distributed collaborative software engineering

    Inah Omoronyia;John Ferguson;Marc Roper;Murray Wood

  • An empirical evaluation of defect detection techniques

    Marc Roper;Murray Wood;James Miller

  • A comparative evaluation of dynamic visualisation tools

    M.J. Pacione;M. Roper;M. Wood

  • A review of tool support for software inspection

    F. MacDonald;J. Miller;A. Brooks;M. Roper

  • Formulating software engineering as a search problem.

    John A. Clark;José Javier Dolado;Mark Harman;Robert M. Hierons

  • Reformulating software engineering as a search

    J. Clarke;M. Harman;R. Hierons;B. Jones

Frequent Co-Authors

James Miller
James Miller University of Alberta
Robert M. Hierons
Robert M. Hierons University of Sheffield
Mark Harman
Mark Harman University College London
Martin Shepperd
Martin Shepperd Brunel University London
Ivan Glesk
Ivan Glesk University of Strathclyde
David Binkley
David Binkley Loyola University Maryland
Phil McMinn
Phil McMinn University of Sheffield
Juan Carlos Augusto
Juan Carlos Augusto Middlesex 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 online degrees is an excellent way to expand your skill set and flexibility in the fast-evolving field of technology. In addition to Computer Science, students can benefit from choosing related programs that open up specialized career opportunities.

Those looking for faster routes to graduation should consider an accelerated cs degree, which allows you to complete your studies more quickly and start your career sooner. If you are interested in sustainability or the environment, an online environmental engineering degree offers a strong foundation in both technology and ecological issues.

Engineering fields are also accessible online, with programs such as the cheapest online master's mechanical engineering, making advanced credentials more affordable for working professionals. Additionally, for those curious about the fundamentals that underpin technology, can you get a physics degree online explores the latest options in distance learning for physics.

These related pathways help you diversify your qualifications, offer greater flexibility, and address a wide spectrum of interests and careers in science and technology.

Best Scientists Citing Marc Roper

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles