World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
64
Citations
20433
World Ranking
2554
National Ranking
1278

Mark S. Ackerman 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 Mark S. Ackerman 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: 209 publications — 49th percentile

49% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark S. Ackerman 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 Mark S. Ackerman 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: 64 D-Index — 82nd percentile

82% 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

  • 2013 - ACM Fellow For contributions to human computer interaction, with an emphasis on finding and sharing expertise.

Overview

Mark S. Ackerman is affiliated with the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor in the United States. Their research spans interdisciplinary domains intersecting computer science and social sciences, with a focus on human-technology interaction and social behavior mediated by technological systems.

They have contributed extensively to the study of innovative human-technology interaction, misinformation and its impacts, animal and plant science education, evolution and science education, expert finding and Q&A systems, knowledge management and sharing, and climate change communication and perception.

Their recent publications include the following papers:

  • Competing to Share Expertise: the Taskcn Knowledge Sharing Community, 2021, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
  • Public Acceptance of Evolution in the United States, 1985-2020, 2021, Public Understanding of Science
  • Data Work in Education: Enacting and Negotiating Care and Control in Teachers' Use of Data-Driven Classroom Surveillance Technology, 2021, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Public Attitude Toward Covid-19 Vaccination: The Influence of Education, Partisanship, Biological Literacy, and Coronavirus Understanding, 2022, The FASEB Journal
  • Rating Friends Without Making Enemies, 2021, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Frequent collaborators include:

  • Jon D. Miller
  • Belén Laspra
  • Carmelo Polino
  • Jordan Huffaker
  • Glenn Branch

They have published notably in the following venues:

  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (6 publications)
  • Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (3 publications)
  • Public Understanding of Science (2 publications)
  • Science and Public Policy (2 publications)
  • Business & Information Systems Engineering (2 publications)

Their work is situated primarily within computer science and social sciences, with significant contributions to several subfields such as sociology and political science, human-computer interaction, social psychology, information systems, and general health professions.

Mark S. Ackerman was recognized as an ACM Fellow in 2013 for their contributions to human-computer interaction, specifically focusing on the discovery and sharing of expertise. This acknowledgment reflects enduring engagement with the dynamics of expertise within technological and social contexts.

Best Publications

  • Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside

    Michael S. Bernstein;Greg Little;Robert C. Miller;Björn Hartmann

  • The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility

    Mark S. Ackerman

  • Expertise networks in online communities: structure and algorithms

    Jun Zhang;Mark S. Ackerman;Lada Adamic

  • Knowledge sharing and yahoo answers: everyone knows something

    Lada A. Adamic;Jun Zhang;Eytan Bakshy;Mark S. Ackerman

  • The perfect search engine is not enough: a study of orienteering behavior in directed search

    Jaime Teevan;Christine Alvarado;Mark S. Ackerman;David R. Karger

  • Privacy in e-commerce: examining user scenarios and privacy preferences

    Mark S. Ackerman;Lorrie Faith Cranor;Joseph Reagle

  • Augmenting organizational memory: a field study of answer garden

    Mark S. Ackerman

  • Expertise recommender: a flexible recommendation system and architecture

    David W. McDonald;Mark S. Ackerman

  • Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users' Attitudes About Online Privacy

    Lorrie Faith Cranor;Joseph Reagle;Mark S. Ackerman

  • Answer Garden 2: merging organizational memory with collaborative help

    Mark S. Ackerman;David W. McDonald

  • Answer Garden: a tool for growing organizational memory

    Unknown

  • Just talk to me: a field study of expertise location

    David W. McDonald;Mark S. Ackerman

  • Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management

    Mark Ackerman;Volkmar Pipek;Volker Wulf

  • Augmenting a window system with speech input

    C. Schmandt;M.S. Ackerman;D. Hindus

  • Augmenting the organizational memory: a field study of answer garden

    Mark S. Ackerman

  • Questions in, knowledge in?: a study of naver's question answering community

    Kevin Kyung Nam;Mark S. Ackerman;Lada A. Adamic

  • Considering an organization's memory

    Mark S. Ackerman;Christine Halverson

  • Crowdsourcing and knowledge sharing: strategic user behavior on taskcn

    Jiang Yang;Lada A. Adamic;Mark S. Ackerman

  • Answer garden: a tool for growing organizational memory

    M. S. Ackerman;T. W. Malone

  • Sharing Knowledge and Expertise: The CSCW View of Knowledge Management

    Mark S. Ackerman;Juri Dachtera;Volkmar Pipek;Volker Wulf

  • Privacy in context

    Mark Ackerman;Trevor Darrell;Daniel Weitzner

  • Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management

    Mark S. Ackerman;Volker Wulf;Volkmar Pipek

  • Just talk to me

    David W. McDonald;Mark S. Ackerman

Frequent Co-Authors

Lada A. Adamic
Lada A. Adamic Facebook (United States)
David W. McDonald
David W. McDonald University of Washington
Volker Wulf
Volker Wulf University of Siegen
Kai Zheng
Kai Zheng University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Thomas Erickson
Thomas Erickson Independent Scientist / Consultant, US
Michael J. Pazzani
Michael J. Pazzani University of California, Riverside
Jaime Teevan
Jaime Teevan Microsoft (United States)
Brian T. Pentland
Brian T. Pentland Michigan 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 in the USA opens doors to numerous related fields and career prospects. Aspiring professionals increasingly look for flexible and affordable pathways, with online degrees providing a solution for many learners.

Engineering is a popular route for those with coding or technical backgrounds, and understanding the mechanical engineering cost of education can help you plan financially. Similarly, aspiring physicists benefit from flexibility by pursuing an online physics bachelor's degree, gaining foundational knowledge for advanced tech roles.

Data-driven industries are booming, making it valuable to consider the cheapest data science degree opportunities. These programs teach in-demand analytics skills used across technology, finance, and healthcare sectors.

For those interested in circuits, automation, or renewable energy, exploring the top online electrical engineering schools can lead to rewarding, high-tech professions. All these fields share connections with computer science, expanding your skillset and career horizons.

Best Scientists Citing Mark S. Ackerman

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles