World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
35
Citations
8297
World Ranking
11470
National Ranking
4712

Mark Claypool 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 Claypool 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: 197 publications — 45th percentile

45% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark Claypool 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 Claypool 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: 35 D-Index — 20th percentile

20% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mark Claypool is affiliated with Worcester Polytechnic Institute in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields with a primary focus on computer science and social sciences. Within these broad areas, their work dives deeper into subfields including human-computer interaction, sociology and political science, computer networks and communications, computer vision and pattern recognition, and physiology.

The scientist has contributed to various topics reflecting interdisciplinary interests. Prominent themes in their work include virtual reality applications and impacts, multimedia communication and technology, digital games and media, interactive and immersive displays, data visualization and analytics, peer-to-peer network technologies, and physical activity and health.

Mark Claypool has authored several papers across top academic venues. Some recent publications include:

  • A Survey and Taxonomy of Latency Compensation Techniques for Network Computer Games, 2022, ACM Computing Surveys
  • The Exergame Enjoyment Questionnaire (EEQ): An Instrument for Measuring Exergame Enjoyment, 2020, Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
  • The Impact of Motion and Delay on Selecting Game Targets with a Mouse, 2020, ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing Communications and Applications
  • The Impact of Latency on Navigation in a First-Person Perspective Game, 2022, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • Spaz! The Effects of Local Latency on Player Actions in a Desktop-Based Exergame, 2021, IEEE Transactions on Games

The scientist has collaborated frequently with several researchers, notably Shengmei Liu, Xiaokun Xu, Alexander Fitzgerald, Sam Huang, and Kyle Sposato. These coauthors appear in multiple publications, indicating ongoing research partnerships.

Mark Claypool's work is published in diverse venues that reflect the interdisciplinary nature of their research. These venues include ACM Computing Surveys, Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing Communications and Applications, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, and IEEE Transactions on Games.

The range of publication venues and research topics suggests a focus on the interaction between technology and human experience, particularly within gaming and multimedia contexts. Their investigations into latency, motion, and user enjoyment emphasize both technical and user-centric perspectives in computer science research.

Best Publications

  • Combining Content-Based and Collaborative Filters in an Online Newspaper

    Mark Claypool;Anuja Gokhale;Tim Miranda;Paul Murnikov

  • Implicit interest indicators

    Mark Claypool;Phong Le;Makoto Wased;David Brown

  • Latency and player actions in online games

    Mark Claypool;Kajal Claypool

  • The effects of loss and latency on user performance in unreal tournament 2003

    Tom Beigbeder;Rory Coughlan;Corey Lusher;John Plunkett

  • Inferring user interest

    M. Claypool;D. Brown;P. Le;M. Waseda

  • The effect of latency on user performance in Warcraft III

    Nathan Sheldon;Eric Girard;Seth Borg;Mark Claypool

  • WBest: A bandwidth estimation tool for IEEE 802.11 wireless networks

    Mingzhe Li;M. Claypool;R. Kinicki

  • Teaching software engineering through game design

    Kajal Claypool;Mark Claypool

  • Latency can kill: precision and deadline in online games

    Mark Claypool;Kajal Claypool

  • The effects of jitter on the peceptual quality of video

    Mark Claypool;Jonathan Tanner

  • On frame rate and player performance in first person shooter games

    Kajal T. Claypool;Mark Claypool

  • Networking and Online Games: Understanding and Engineering Multiplayer Internet Games

    Grenville Armitage;Mark Claypool;Philip Branch

  • The effect of latency on user performance in Real-Time Strategy games

    Mark Claypool

  • The effects of frame rate and resolution on users playing first person shooter games

    Mark Claypool;Kajal Claypool;Feissal Damaa

  • An empirical study of realvideo performance across the internet

    Yubing Wang;Mark Claypool;Zheng Zuo

  • Characteristics of streaming media stored on the Web

    Mingzhe Li;Mark Claypool;Robert Kinicki;James Nichols

  • The effects of latency on online madden NFL football

    James Nichols;Mark Claypool

  • Thin to win?: network performance analysis of the OnLive thin client game system

    Mark Claypool;David Finkel;Alexander Grant;Michael Solano

  • Perspectives, frame rates and resolutions: it's all in the game

    Mark Claypool;Kajal Claypool

  • Analysis of active queue management

    Jae Chung;M. Claypool

  • The effects of latency on player performance in cloud-based games

    Mark Claypool;David Finkel

Frequent Co-Authors

Grenville Armitage
Grenville Armitage Netflix (United States)
John Riedl
John Riedl University of Minnesota
Kamil Ugurbil
Kamil Ugurbil University of Minnesota
Apostolos P. Georgopoulos
Apostolos P. Georgopoulos University of Minnesota
Carl Gutwin
Carl Gutwin University of Saskatchewan
Andy Cockburn
Andy Cockburn University of Canterbury
George L. Wilcox
George L. Wilcox University of Minnesota
Wolfgang Effelsberg
Wolfgang Effelsberg University of Mannheim
Robert Elde
Robert Elde University of Minnesota
Florian 'Floyd' Mueller
Florian 'Floyd' Mueller Monash 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 education can open up a range of flexible career opportunities for Computer Science students. For those interested in data-driven roles, pursuing the best online data science masters can help you gain specialized skills for high-demand jobs in analytics, AI, or machine learning.

If you are looking to branch out into management, there are affordable online mba programs that provide business and leadership training suitable for tech professionals aiming for executive or project management roles.

For a faster route to an advanced credential, consider the one year online masters programs. These allow you to earn a graduate degree quickly, helping you enter the workforce or qualify for promotions sooner.

Alternatively, if you’re interested in combining computing skills with real-world project oversight, an accelerated construction management degree may be a valuable option. This pathway opens doors to both tech and construction leadership careers.

Each of these flexible online programs supports diverse ambitions, making it easier to tailor your education to your career goals while balancing other commitments.

Best Scientists Citing Mark Claypool

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles