World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Matthew Smith

Matthew Smith

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
39
Citations
6182
World Ranking
9790
National Ranking
487

Matthew Smith 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 Matthew Smith 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: 250 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: 560 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: 424 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 378 scientists 262–271 publications: 300 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: 162 publications — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Matthew Smith 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 Matthew Smith sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 984 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 969 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 765 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 517 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: 39 D-Index — 33rd percentile

33% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Matthew Smith is affiliated with the University of Bonn in Germany and conducts research primarily in the fields of Computer Science and Social Sciences. Their work spans various subfields including Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science, Applied Psychology, Computer Science Applications, and Signal Processing.

Their research topics cover a wide scope within information and cybersecurity, encompassing:

  • Information and Cyber Security
  • User Authentication and Security Systems
  • Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Software Engineering Research
  • Expert finding and Q&A systems
  • Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

Matthew Smith has contributed to several scholarly articles, with recent notable publications including:

  • "Behavioral responses to a cyber attack in a hospital environment," 2021, Scientific Reports
  • "Testing time limits in screener questions for online surveys with programmers," 2022, Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering
  • "Never ever or no matter what: Investigating Adoption Intentions and Misconceptions about the Corona-Warn-App in Germany," 2023, OPAL (Open@LaTrobe) (La Trobe University)
  • "Exploring the security narrative in the work context," 2020, Journal of Cybersecurity
  • "The SOC is Dead, Long Live the SOC!," 2020, ITNOW

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Matthew Smith include:

  • Eva Gerlitz
  • Markus Willing
  • Christian Dresen
  • Maximilian Haering
  • Carmen Binnewies

Their work has appeared in diverse publication venues, notably:

  • Scientific Reports
  • Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering
  • Journal of Cybersecurity
  • IEEE Security & Privacy
  • ITNOW

Best Publications

  • Why eve and mallory love android: an analysis of android SSL (in)security

    Sascha Fahl;Marian Harbach;Thomas Muders;Lars Baumgärtner

  • It's a Hard Lock Life: A Field Study of Smartphone (Un)Locking Behavior and Risk Perception

    Marian Harbach;Emanuel von Zezschwitz;Andreas Fichtner;Alexander De Luca

  • Big data privacy issues in public social media

    Matthew Smith;Christian Szongott;Benjamin Henne;Gabriele von Voigt

  • VCCFinder: Finding Potential Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Projects to Assist Code Audits

    Henning Perl;Sergej Dechand;Matthew Smith;Daniel Arp

  • Developers are Not the Enemy!: The Need for Usable Security APIs

    Matthew Green;Matthew Smith

  • SoK: Secure Messaging

    Nik Unger;Sergej Dechand;Joseph Bonneau;Sascha Fahl

  • Using personal examples to improve risk communication for security & privacy decisions

    Marian Harbach;Markus Hettig;Susanne Weber;Matthew Smith

  • Rethinking SSL development in an appified world

    Sascha Fahl;Marian Harbach;Henning Perl;Markus Koetter

  • Obstacles to the Adoption of Secure Communication Tools

    Ruba Abu-Salma;M. Angela Sasse;Joseph Bonneau;Anastasia Danilova

  • Now you see me, now you don't: protecting smartphone authentication from shoulder surfers

    Alexander De Luca;Marian Harbach;Emanuel von Zezschwitz;Max-Emanuel Maurer

  • On the ecological validity of a password study

    Sascha Fahl;Marian Harbach;Yasemin Acar;Matthew Smith

  • Xen and the Art of Cluster Scheduling

    Niels Fallenbeck;Hans-Joachim Picht;Matthew Smith;Bernd Freisleben

  • Why Do Developers Get Password Storage Wrong?: A Qualitative Usability Study

    Alena Naiakshina;Anastasia Danilova;Christian Tiefenau;Marco Herzog

  • SoK: Lessons Learned from Android Security Research for Appified Software Platforms

    Yasemin Acar;Michael Backes;Sven Bugiel;Sascha Fahl

  • Secret program execution in the cloud applying homomorphic encryption

    Michael Brenner;Jan Wiebelitz;Gabriele von Voigt;Matthew Smith

  • Helping Johnny to Analyze Malware: A Usability-Optimized Decompiler and Malware Analysis User Study

    Khaled Yakdan;Sergej Dechand;Elmar Gerhards-Padilla;Matthew Smith

  • Efficient Distribution of Virtual Machines for Cloud Computing

    Matthias Schmidt;Niels Fallenbeck;Matthew Smith;Bernd Freisleben

  • SnapMe if you can: privacy threats of other peoples' geo-tagged media and what we can do about it

    Benjamin Henne;Christian Szongott;Matthew Smith

  • No More Gotos: Decompilation Using Pattern-Independent Control-Flow Structuring and Semantics-Preserving Transformations

    Khaled Yakdan;Sebastian Eschweiler;Elmar Gerhards-Padilla;Matthew Smith

  • Helping Johnny 2.0 to encrypt his Facebook conversations

    Sascha Fahl;Marian Harbach;Thomas Muders;Matthew Smith

  • "If HTTPS Were Secure, I Wouldn't Need 2FA" - End User and Administrator Mental Models of HTTPS

    Katharina Krombholz;Karoline Busse;Katharina Pfeffer;Matthew Smith

Frequent Co-Authors

Bernd Freisleben
Bernd Freisleben Philipp University of Marburg
Sascha Fahl
Sascha Fahl Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Michael P. Brenner
Michael P. Brenner University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
M. Angela Sasse
M. Angela Sasse University College London
Matthew Green
Matthew Green Johns Hopkins University
Joseph Bonneau
Joseph Bonneau New York University
Heinrich Hussmann
Heinrich Hussmann Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Edgar R. Weippl
Edgar R. Weippl University of Vienna
Douglas Gingrich
Douglas Gingrich University of Alberta
Bobby Samir Acharya
Bobby Samir Acharya King's College London

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

When considering studying Computer Science in the USA, it's important to explore related online degrees and potential career pathways. Many accredited universities now offer a computer science accelerated program that allows students to earn their degree faster while studying flexibly from anywhere. These programs are ideal for those looking to enter the workforce quickly or seeking a career transition.

If you are interested in broadening your technical expertise, consider adjacent fields such as engineering or physics. For instance, an environmental engineering online degree could prepare you for technology-driven solutions to environmental challenges. Similarly, an online degree in mechanical engineering offers a strong foundation for careers in robotics, manufacturing, or product design.

For those with a passion for the fundamental laws of nature and data science, pursuing the cheapest online physics degree can be an affordable way to build analytical and problem-solving skills that are highly valued across tech industries. Each of these online pathways can open doors to diverse and rewarding careers in science and technology.

Best Scientists Citing Matthew Smith

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles