World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
55
Citations
9759
World Ranking
4384
National Ranking
131

Marcus Foth 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 Marcus Foth 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: 366 publications — 84th percentile

84% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Marcus Foth 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 Marcus Foth 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: 55 D-Index — 71st percentile

71% 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

  • 2016 - ACM Senior Member

Overview

Marcus Foth is affiliated with the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Their research spans the intersection of social sciences and computer science, focusing prominently on human-computer interaction and information systems. They have contributed to several subfields including sociology and political science, media technology, and management of technology and innovation.

The primary topics of study in Marcus Foth's work include innovative human-technology interaction, smart cities and technologies, blockchain technology applications and security, innovative approaches in technology and social development, land use and ecosystem services, cultural industries and urban development, and COVID-19 digital contact tracing.

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Marcus Foth are:

  • Peta Mitchell
  • Shoufeng Cao
  • Glenda Amayo Caldwell
  • Warwick Powell
  • Greg Hearn

They have published multiple times in venues such as:

  • Interaction design & architecture(s)/ID&A Interaction design & architecture(s)
  • Journal of Urban Technology
  • Journal of Industrial Information Integration
  • AI & Society
  • Sustainability

Recent scholarly papers include:

  • "Strengthening consumer trust in beef supply chain traceability with a blockchain-based human-machine reconcile mechanism" (2020, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture)
  • "Garbage in garbage out: The precarious link between IoT and blockchain in food supply chains" (2021, Journal of Industrial Information Integration)
  • "Urban AI: understanding the emerging role of artificial intelligence in smart cities" (2022, AI & Society)
  • "BlockSidewalk to Barcelona: Technological sovereignty and the social license to operate smart cities" (2020, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology)
  • "Blockchain smart contracts for supply chain finance: Mapping the innovation potential in Australia-China beef supply chains" (2022, Journal of Industrial Information Integration)

Marcus Foth has also authored books published by Queensland University of Technology, including "DIY & More-than-Human Media Architecture, Allegories, Entanglements & Speculative Practice" (2021) and "Activating Townsville's Creative Underground" (2025).

They have been recognized as an ACM Senior Member since 2016.

Best Publications

  • Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature

    Tan Yigitcanlar;Md. Kamruzzaman;Marcus Foth;Jamile Sabatini-Marques

  • Gamification and serious games within the domain of domestic energy consumption: A systematic review

    Daniel Johnson;Ella Horton;Rory Mulcahy;Marcus Foth

  • Urban informatics

    Marcus Foth;Jaz Hee-jeong Choi;Christine Satchell

  • From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen Engagement

    Marcus Foth;Laura Forlano;Christine Satchell;Martin Gibbs

  • Libraries as coworking spaces: Understanding user motivations and perceived barriers to social learning

    Mark Bilandzic;Marcus Foth

  • Networked Individualism of Urban Residents: Discovering the communicative ecology in inner-city apartment buildings

    Marcus Foth;Greg Hearn

  • Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Practice and Promise of the Real-Time City

    Marcus Foth

  • Applications and implementations of new media in corporate communications: An action research approach

    Greg Hearn;Marcus Foth;Heather Leona Gray

  • Motivating domestic energy conservation through comparative, community-based feedback in mobile and social media

    Petromil Petkov;Felix Köbler;Marcus Foth;Helmut Krcmar

  • Citizen’s Right to the Digital City

    Marcus Foth;Martin Brynskov;Timo Ojala

  • Digital Storytelling and History Lines: Community Engagement in a Master-Planned Development

    Helen Klaebe;Marcus Foth;Jean Burgess;Mark Bilandzic

  • The Second Life of urban planning? Using NeoGeography tools for community engagement

    Marcus Foth;Bhishna Bajracharya;Ross Brown;Greg Hearn

  • CityFlocks: designing social navigation for urban mobile information systems

    Mark Bilandzic;Marcus Foth;Alexander De Luca

  • People, content, location: sweet spotting urban screens for situated engagement

    Ronald Schroeter;Marcus Foth;Christine Satchell

  • More-than-human participation: design for sustainable smart city futures

    Rachel Clarke;Sara Heitlinger;Ann Light;Laura Forlano

  • Participatory Design and Action Reseach: Identical Twins or Synergetic Pair?

    Marcus Foth;Jeff Axup

  • Strengthening consumer trust in beef supply chain traceability with a blockchain-based human-machine reconcile mechanism

    Shoufeng Cao;Warwick Powell;Marcus Foth;Valeri Natanelov

  • Augmenting public participation: enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0

    Joel Fredericks;Marcus Foth

  • Action Research in the Design of New Media and ICT Systems

    Gregory N. Hearn;Marcus Foth

  • Participatory urban informatics: towards citizen-ability

    Marcus Foth

  • Extending Australia's digital divide policy: an examination of the value of social inclusion and social capital policy frameworks

    Tanya M. Notley;Marcus Foth

  • Engaging energy saving through motivation-specific social comparison

    Petromil Petkov;Felix Köbler;Marcus Foth;Richard Medland

  • Network action research

    Marcus Foth

  • Citizen's Right to the Digital City: Urban Interfaces, Activism, and Placemaking

    Marcus Foth;Martin Brynskov;Timo Ojala

Frequent Co-Authors

Martin Tomitsch
Martin Tomitsch University of Technology Sydney
Andry Rakotonirainy
Andry Rakotonirainy Queensland University of Technology
Margot Brereton
Margot Brereton Queensland University of Technology
Jean Burgess
Jean Burgess Queensland University of Technology
Eric Paulos
Eric Paulos University of California, Berkeley
Carl DiSalvo
Carl DiSalvo Georgia Institute of Technology
Helmut Krcmar
Helmut Krcmar Technical University of Munich
Paul Dourish
Paul Dourish University of California, Irvine
Martin Gibbs
Martin Gibbs University of Melbourne

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 study can open up flexible and affordable pathways to a computer science career in the USA. Students looking to fast-track their entry to the workforce may consider 1 year associate degree programs online, which provide foundational skills efficiently.

For those seeking a higher credential, enrolling in one of the most useful masters degrees can lead to greater career opportunities and the potential for higher salaries. Master's programs in computer science and related fields are in high demand, particularly in the tech sector.

Budget is a major concern for many learners. Researching the cheapest online college options can help reduce student debt and make advanced education more accessible.

Additionally, students with lower GPAs still have opportunities to pursue their goals. There are online colleges that accept 2.0 gpa, offering a second chance to succeed in computer science and IT.

Whether you are just beginning or seeking to advance your career, online programs provide flexibility and diverse options for every background and budget.

Best Scientists Citing Marcus Foth

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles