World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
68
Citations
13988
World Ranking
2122
National Ranking
1069

Margaret Burnett 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 Margaret Burnett 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: 299 publications — 74th percentile

74% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Margaret Burnett 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 Margaret Burnett 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: 68 D-Index — 86th percentile

86% 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

  • 2017 - ACM Fellow For contributions to end-user software engineering, understanding gender biases in software, and broadening participation in computing
  • 2015 - ACM Distinguished Member

Overview

Margaret Burnett is affiliated with Oregon State University in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields, primarily within Computer Science and Social Sciences, with significant contributions in Artificial Intelligence, Sociology and Political Science, Computer Science Applications, Human-Computer Interaction, and Safety Research.

Their work has addressed topics including Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), Ethics and Social Impacts of AI, Innovative Human-Technology Interaction, Digital Games and Media, Open Source Software Innovations, Technology Adoption and User Behaviour, and Gender and Technology in Education.

Burnett has published extensively, including papers such as:

  • "Gender-Inclusive HCI Research and Design: A Conceptual Review," 2020, Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction
  • "Mental Models of Mere Mortals with Explanations of Reinforcement Learning," 2020, ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
  • "How Gender-Biased Tools Shape Newcomer Experiences in OSS Projects," 2020, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
  • "Special report: The AgAID AI institute for transforming workforce and decision support in agriculture," 2022, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
  • ""Regular" CS × Inclusive Design = Smarter Students and Greater Diversity," 2023, ACM Transactions on Computing Education

Their frequent co-authors have included A. W. Anderson, Anita Sarma, Jonathan Dodge, Alan Fern, and Fatima Moussaoui. Burnett's work has appeared often in venues such as arXiv (Cornell University), ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, IEEE Software, Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction, and Computers and Electronics in Agriculture.

Awards received by Burnett include:

  • ACM Fellow (2017) for contributions to end-user software engineering, understanding gender biases in software, and broadening participation in computing
  • ACM Distinguished Member (2015)

Best Publications

  • The state of the art in end-user software engineering

    Amy J. Ko;Robin Abraham;Laura Beckwith;Alan Blackwell

  • Principles of Explanatory Debugging to Personalize Interactive Machine Learning

    Todd Kulesza;Margaret Burnett;Weng-Keen Wong;Simone Stumpf

  • Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models

    Todd Kulesza;Simone Stumpf;Margaret Burnett;Sherry Yang

  • GenderMag: A Method for Evaluating Software's Gender Inclusiveness

    Margaret Burnett;Simone Stumpf;Jamie Macbeth;Stephann Makri

  • A practical guide to controlled experiments of software engineering tools with human participants

    Andrew J. Ko;Thomas D. Latoza;Margaret M. Burnett

  • Forms/3: A first-order visual language to explore the boundaries of the spreadsheet paradigm

    Margaret Burnett;John Atwood;Rebecca Walpole Djang;James Reichwein

  • A methodology for testing spreadsheets

    Gregg Rothermel;Margaret Burnett;Lixin Li;Christopher Dupuis

  • End-user software engineering

    Margaret Burnett;Curtis Cook;Gregg Rothermel

  • Tell me more?: the effects of mental model soundness on personalizing an intelligent agent

    Todd Kulesza;Simone Stumpf;Margaret Burnett;Irwin Kwan

  • Interacting meaningfully with machine learning systems: Three experiments

    Simone Stumpf;Vidya Rajaram;Lida Li;Weng-Keen Wong

  • A user-centred approach to functions in Excel

    Simon Peyton Jones;Alan Blackwell;Margaret Burnett

  • Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers' debugging

    Laura Beckwith;Cory Kissinger;Margaret Burnett;Susan Wiedenbeck

  • How Programmers Debug, Revisited: An Information Foraging Theory Perspective

    J. Lawrance;C. Bogart;M. Burnett;R. Bellamy

  • Scaling up visual programming languages

    M.M. Burnett;M.J. Baker;C. Bohus;P. Carlson

  • Programming, Problem Solving, and Self-Awareness: Effects of Explicit Guidance

    Dastyni Loksa;Amy J. Ko;Will Jernigan;Alannah Oleson

  • End-user software engineering with assertions in the spreadsheet paradigm

    Margaret Burnett;Curtis Cook;Omkar Pendse;Gregg Rothermel

  • Toward harnessing user feedback for machine learning

    Simone Stumpf;Vidya Rajaram;Lida Li;Margaret Burnett

  • Visual object-oriented programming

    Margaret M. Burnett

  • WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluation

    Karen J. Rothermel;Curtis R. Cook;Margaret M. Burnett;Justin Schonfeld

  • Invited research overview: end-user programming

    Brad A. Myers;Amy J. Ko;Margaret M. Burnett

Frequent Co-Authors

Gregg Rothermel
Gregg Rothermel North Carolina State University
Brad A. Myers
Brad A. Myers Carnegie Mellon University
Weng-Keen Wong
Weng-Keen Wong Oregon State University
Anita Sarma
Anita Sarma Oregon State University
Mary Beth Rosson
Mary Beth Rosson Pennsylvania State University
Alan F. Blackwell
Alan F. Blackwell University of Cambridge
Rachel K. E. Bellamy
Rachel K. E. Bellamy IBM (United States)
Mary Shaw
Mary Shaw Carnegie Mellon University
Elizabeth F. Churchill
Elizabeth F. Churchill Google (United States)
Martin Erwig
Martin Erwig Oregon State 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 opens the door to many connected fields and online degrees. Understanding these pathways can help you find a program that aligns with your interests and career goals.

For students passionate about sustainability and technology, pursuing an environmental engineering degree can lead to impactful roles designing solutions to global environmental challenges. If designing and building mechanical systems excites you, an online mechanical engineering degree is another excellent option.

Analytical thinkers with a curiosity for the fundamental laws of nature might consider the cheapest online physics degree. This can be a great fit for those interested in both scientific research and technology.

The expanding tech job market also offers opportunities in big data. Accredited data science programs can prepare students for careers analyzing complex data sets and driving business intelligence.

With so many affordable and flexible online options, students have the freedom to tailor their education to match their ambitions in computer science and related fields.

Best Scientists Citing Margaret Burnett

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles