World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Michael Felderer

Michael Felderer

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
39
Citations
7138
World Ranking
9688
National Ranking
481

Michael Felderer 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 Michael Felderer 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: 386 publications — 86th percentile

86% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Michael Felderer 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 Michael Felderer 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: 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

Michael Felderer is affiliated with the University of Cologne in Germany. Their research primarily focuses on computer science, with a particular emphasis on software engineering and its various subfields.

The main fields of study for Felderer include:

  • Computer Science

Within this broad field, their work explores several subfields such as:

  • Information Systems
  • Computer Networks and Communications
  • Software
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering

The primary research topics pursued by Felderer cover an array of areas within software engineering, including:

  • Software Engineering Research
  • Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Green IT and Sustainability
  • Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies

Felderer's recent publication record features several journal articles and conference papers addressing contemporary issues in software engineering and related technologies. Notable recent works include:

  • From monolithic systems to Microservices: An assessment framework, 2021, Information and Software Technology
  • Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research, 2020, arXiv (Cornell University)
  • What Makes Agile Software Development Agile?, 2021, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
  • The pipeline for the continuous development of artificial intelligence models-Current state of research and practice, 2023, Journal of Systems and Software
  • A taxonomy of attack mechanisms in the automotive domain, 2021, Computer Standards & Interfaces

Felderer has frequently collaborated with several co-authors, including:

  • Vahid Garousi
  • Benedikt Dornauer
  • Rudolf Ramler
  • Monika Steidl
  • Daniel Méndez

The venues where Felderer has published multiple papers include:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Information and Software Technology
  • Journal of Systems and Software
  • IEEE Software

Best Publications

  • Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer;Michael Felderer;Mika V. Mäntylä

  • Naming the pain in requirements engineering

    D. Méndez Fernández;S. Wagner;M. Kalinowski;M. Felderer

  • The need for multivocal literature reviews in software engineering: complementing systematic literature reviews with grey literature

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer;Mika V. Mäntylä

  • Hybrid software and system development in practice: waterfall, scrum, and beyond

    Marco Kuhrmann;Philipp Diebold;Jürgen Münch;Paolo Tell

  • Closing the Gap Between Software Engineering Education and Industrial Needs

    Vahid Garousi;Gorkem Giray;Eray Tuzun;Cagatay Catal

  • Security Testing: A Survey

    Michael Felderer;Matthias Büchler;Martin Johns;Achim D. Brucker

  • Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys

    Stefan Wagner;Daniel Méndez Fernández;Michael Felderer;Antonio Vetrò

  • Guidelines for including the grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer;Mika V. Mäntylä

  • Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering

    Unknown

  • Software test maturity assessment and test process improvement

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer;Tuna Hacalolu

  • From monolithic systems to Microservices: An assessment framework

    Florian Auer;Valentina Lenarduzzi;Michael Felderer;Michael Felderer;Davide Taibi

  • Model-based security testing: a taxonomy and systematic classification

    Michael Felderer;Philipp Zech;Ruth Breu;Matthias Büchler

  • A taxonomy of risk-based testing

    Michael Felderer;Ina Schieferdecker

  • Hybrid Software Development Approaches in Practice: A European Perspective

    Marco Kuhrmann;Philipp Diebold;Jurgen Munch;Paolo Tell

  • Aligning software engineering education with industrial needs: A meta-analysis

    Vahid Garousi;Görkem Giray;Eray Tüzün;Cagatay Catal

  • Comparison of the FMEA and STPA safety analysis methods–a case study

    Sardar Muhammad Sulaman;Armin Beer;Michael Felderer;Michael Felderer;Martin Höst

  • Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research

    Paul Ralph;Nauman bin Ali;Sebastian Baltes;Domenico Bianculli

  • The Pipeline for the Continuous Development of Artificial Intelligence Models - Current State of Research and Practice

    Unknown

  • Testing embedded software: A survey of the literature

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer;Michael Felderer;Çağrı Murat Karapıçak;Uğur Yılmaz

  • What Makes Agile Software Development Agile

    Marco Kuhrmann;Paolo Tell;Regina Hebig;Jil Ann Christin Klunder

  • Integrating risk-based testing in industrial test processes

    Michael Felderer;Rudolf Ramler

  • Worlds Apart: Industrial and Academic Focus Areas in Software Testing

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer

  • Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering: Contemporary Problems, Causes, and Effects in Practice

    D. Méndez Fernández;S. Wagner;M. Kalinowski;M. Felderer

  • A Classification for Model-Based Security Testing

    Michael Felderer;Berthold Agreiter;Philipp Zech;Ruth Breu

Frequent Co-Authors

Stefan Wagner
Stefan Wagner University of Stuttgart
Dietmar Pfahl
Dietmar Pfahl University of Tartu
Mika V. Mäntylä
Mika V. Mäntylä University of Helsinki
Tayana Conte
Tayana Conte Federal University of Amazonas
Guenther Ruhe
Guenther Ruhe University of Calgary
Jürgen Münch
Jürgen Münch Reutlingen University
Elske Ammenwerth
Elske Ammenwerth UMIT Tirol - Private University for Health Sciences and Health Technology
Roel Wieringa
Roel Wieringa University of Twente
Casper Lassenius
Casper Lassenius Aalto University
Bernhard Rumpe
Bernhard Rumpe RWTH Aachen 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 a variety of related online degrees and career opportunities. Many students pursue technical fields that complement computer science, such as physics, data science, and electrical engineering. For those interested in cost-effective study options, consider researching the online physics degrees available at affordable rates.

Data science is another booming discipline, closely linked with computer science in both skills and career prospects. You can review the data science degree programs that are most affordable in the USA to find a program that fits your budget and goals.

If you are interested in applied technology and innovation, check out the best online electrical engineering programs USA. These programs can lead to careers in robotics, telecommunications, and more.

For those seeking a faster route to employability, look into certifications that pay well. These can serve as stepping stones into high-demand tech roles, offering both skill development and solid earning potential.

Best Scientists Citing Michael Felderer

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles