World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
34
Citations
5482
World Ranking
12107
National Ranking
764

Mark J. Weal 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 J. Weal 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: 186 publications — 41st percentile

41% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark J. Weal 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 J. Weal 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: 34 D-Index — 16th percentile

16% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mark J. Weal is a researcher affiliated with the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. Their work spans several fields of study, particularly within psychology and social sciences. The subfields of focus include sociology and political science, applied psychology, general health professions, developmental and educational psychology, and cognitive neuroscience.

Weal's main research topics incorporate digital mental health interventions, reading and literacy development, mobile health and mHealth applications, smart grid energy management, building energy and comfort optimization, energy efficiency and management, and the neurobiology of language and bilingualism.

Their recent scholarly contributions include the following papers:

  • Non-Intrusive Load Monitoring Using Prior Models of General Appliance Types, 2021, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  • The impact of skim reading and navigation when reading hyperlinks on the web, 2020, PLoS ONE
  • Assessing the Impact of Engagement and Real-Time Feedback in a Mobile Behavior Change Intervention for Supporting Critical Thinking in Engineering Research Projects, 2021, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
  • Telemedicine for Adults With Cochlear Implants in the United Kingdom (CHOICE): Protocol for a Prospective Interventional Multisite Study, 2021, JMIR Research Protocols
  • Attitudes and associated factors of patients' adoption of patient accessible electronic health records in China - A mixed methods study, 2023, Digital Health

The research has been published across diverse venues, including:

  • PLoS ONE
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  • IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
  • JMIR Research Protocols
  • Digital Health

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Weal include:

  • Gemma Fitzsimmons
  • Lewis T. Jayes
  • Denis Drieghe
  • Sascha Miller
  • Lucy Yardley

Best Publications

  • Automatic ontology-based knowledge extraction from Web documents

    H. Alani;Sanghee Kim;D.E. Millard;M.J. Weal

  • Non-intrusive load monitoring using prior models of general appliance types

    Oliver Parson;Siddhartha Ghosh;Mark Weal;Alex Rogers

  • Ambient wood: designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors

    Y. Rogers;S. Price;G. Fitzpatrick;R. Fleck

  • Ubi-learning integrates indoor and outdoor experiences

    Yvonne Rogers;Sara Price;Cliff Randell;Danae Stanton Fraser

  • An unsupervised training method for non-intrusive appliance load monitoring ☆

    Oliver Parson;Siddhartha Ghosh;Mark J. Weal;Alex Rogers

  • Artequakt: Generating Tailored Biographies from Automatically Annotated Fragments from the Web

    Sanghee Kim;Harith Alani;Wendy Hall;Paul H. Lewis

  • Digital futures? Sociological challenges and opportunities in the emergent semantic web

    Susan Halford;Catherine Pope;Mark J. Weal

  • Automation, Algorithms, and Politics| Bots and Political Influence: A Sociotechnical Investigation of Social Network Capital

    Dhiraj Murthy;Alison B. Powell;Ramine Tinati;Nick Anstead

  • Auld Leaky: A Contextual Open Hypermedia Link Server

    Danius T. Michaelides;David E. Millard;Mark J. Weal;David De Roure

  • Understanding usage of a hybrid website and smartphone app for weight management: a mixed-methods study.

    Leanne G Morrison;Charlie Hargood;Sharon Xiaowen Lin;Laura Dennison

  • Towards Open Adaptive Hypermedia

    Christopher Bailey;Wendy Hall;David E. Millard;Mark J. Weal

  • Common Barriers to the Use of Patient-Generated Data Across Clinical Settings

    Peter West;Max Van Kleek;Richard Giordano;Mark J. Weal

  • Peer-Based Social Media Features in Behavior Change Interventions: Systematic Review.

    Elaheebocus Smra.;M Weal;L Morrison;L Yardley

  • Learning through digitally-augmented physical experiences: Reflections on the ambient wood project.

    Yvonne Rogers;Sara Price;Eric Harris;Ted Phelps

  • Using Hidden Markov Models for Iterative Non-intrusive Appliance Monitoring

    Oliver Parson;Siddhartha Ghosh;Mark Weal;Alex Rogers

  • Semantic Technologies for Learning and Teaching in the Web 2.0 Era

    T. Tiropanis;H. Davis;D. Millard;M. Weal

  • The ambient wood journals: replaying the experience

    Mark J. Weal;Danius T. Michaelides;Mark K. Thompson;David C. DeRoure

  • UbiComp in opportunity spaces: challenges for participatory design

    Eva Hornecker;John Halloran;Geraldine Fitzpatrick;Mark Weal

  • A Framework for Analyzing and Measuring Usage and Engagement Data (AMUsED) in Digital Interventions: Viewpoint

    Sascha Miller;Benjamin Ainsworth;Lucy Yardley;Alexander Milton

  • The literacy fieldtrip: using UbiComp to support children's creative writing

    John Halloran;Eva Hornecker;Geraldine Fitzpatrick;Mark Weal

  • Information Quality Challenges of Patient-Generated Data in Clinical Practice.

    Peter West;Max Van Kleek;Richard Giordano;Mark Weal

  • Semantic Technologies for Learning and Teaching in the Web 2.0 Era: A survey of UK Higher Education

    Thanassis Tiropanis;Hugh Davis;Dave Millard;Mark Weal

Frequent Co-Authors

David De Roure
David De Roure University of Oxford
Lucy Yardley
Lucy Yardley University of Bristol
Wendy Hall
Wendy Hall University of Southampton
Hugh C. Davis
Hugh C. Davis University of Southampton
Gary Wills
Gary Wills University of Southampton
Nigel Shadbolt
Nigel Shadbolt University of Oxford
Luc Moreau
Luc Moreau King's College London
Harith Alani
Harith Alani The Open University
John W. Halloran
John W. Halloran University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

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 opens many doors for students interested in Computer Science and beyond. If you're looking for a flexible start, 2 year online degrees offer a fast track into tech fields and can be a stepping stone to a bachelor’s program or entry-level roles.

Cost is a major concern for many students. For budget-friendly learning, research the cheapest online college options. These institutions provide quality programs without a heavy financial burden, making education more accessible to all.

Not every student has a perfect academic record. Fortunately, there are online schools that accept low gpa, giving more people the chance to pursue degrees and build new careers regardless of past challenges.

Additionally, if you're open to careers related to technology and environmental impact, consider what you can achieve with high-paying jobs with environmental science degree. Learn more about potential salaries and roles in this sector by exploring high-paying jobs with environmental science degree.

Best Scientists Citing Mark J. Weal

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles