World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Mika V. Mäntylä

Mika V. Mäntylä

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
42
Citations
8357
World Ranking
8317
National Ranking
70

Mika V. Mäntylä 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 Mika V. Mäntylä 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: 123 publications — 16th percentile

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

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

Mika V. Mäntylä 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 Mika V. Mäntylä 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: 42 D-Index — 43rd percentile

43% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mika V. Mäntylä is affiliated with the University of Oulu in Finland. Their research primarily spans the field of Computer Science, with a notable focus on subfields such as Information Systems, Computer Networks and Communications, Software, Artificial Intelligence, and Computer Science Applications.

The scientist's research topics cover multiple dimensions of software development and analysis, including:

  • Software Engineering Research
  • Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Open Source Software Innovations

Mäntylä has a portfolio of recent papers addressing various software engineering challenges and phenomena. Key publications include:

  • "Time pressure in software engineering: A systematic review" (2020), published in Information and Software Technology
  • "Test automation maturity improves product quality-Quantitative study of open source projects using continuous integration" (2022), published in Journal of Systems and Software
  • "Revealing complexities when adult readers engage in the credibility evaluation of social media posts" (2023), published in Computers in Human Behavior
  • "Predicting technical debt from commit contents: reproduction and extension with automated feature selection" (2020), published in Software Quality Journal
  • "Individual differences limit predicting well-being and productivity using software repositories: a longitudinal industrial study" (2021), published in arXiv (Cornell University)

The scientist frequently collaborates with several coauthors who have contributed to their research projects multiple times. These frequent collaborators include:

  • Shayan Hashemi
  • Miikka Kuutila
  • Leevi Rantala
  • Murali Sridharan
  • Jouni Markkula

Mäntylä's work is disseminated in a variety of academic venues, with repeated contributions to the following publication platforms:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Information and Software Technology
  • Software Quality Journal
  • Automated Software Engineering

The accumulation of publications reflects sustained engagement with software engineering challenges, particularly in understanding software performance, quality, and automated testing practices. The research contributes empirical and theoretical insights into software system reliability as well as human factors in software engineering contexts.

Best Publications

  • The evolution of sentiment analysis—A review of research topics, venues, and top cited papers

    Mika Viking Mäntylä;Daniel Graziotin;Miikka Kuutila

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

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

  • Comparing and experimenting machine learning techniques for code smell detection

    Francesca Arcelli Fontana;Mika V. Mäntylä;Marco Zanoni;Alessandro Marino

  • Benefits and limitations of automated software testing: systematic literature review and practitioner survey

    Dudekula Mohammad Rafi;Katam Reddy Kiran Moses;Kai Petersen;Mika V. Mantyla

  • Using metrics in Agile and Lean Software Development - A systematic literature review of industrial studies

    Eetu Kupiainen;Mika V. Mäntylä;Juha Itkonen

  • A taxonomy and an initial empirical study of bad smells in code

    M. Mantyla;J. Vanhanen;C. Lassenius

  • What Types of Defects Are Really Discovered in Code Reviews

    M.V. Mantyla;C. Lassenius

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

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer;Mika V. Mäntylä

  • Perceived causes of software project failures - An analysis of their relationships

    Timo O. A. Lehtinen;Mika V. Mäntylä;Jari Vanhanen;Juha Itkonen

  • The Highways and Country Roads to Continuous Deployment

    Marko Leppanen;Simo Makinen;Max Pagels;Veli-Pekka Eloranta

  • When and what to automate in software testing? A multi-vocal literature review

    Vahid Garousi;Mika V. Mäntylä

  • Subjective evaluation of software evolvability using code smells: An empirical study

    Mika V. Mäntylä;Casper Lassenius

  • Code Smell Detection: Towards a Machine Learning-Based Approach

    Francesca Arcelli Fontana;Marco Zanoni;Alessandro Marino;Mika V. Mantyla

  • A systematic literature review of literature reviews in software testing

    Vahid Garousi;Mika V. Mäntylä

  • Bad smells - humans as code critics

    M.V. Mantyla;J. Vanhanen;C. Lassenius

  • On rapid releases and software testing: a case study and a semi-systematic literature review

    Mika V. Mäntylä;Bram Adams;Foutse Khomh;Emelie Engström

  • Mining valence, arousal, and dominance: possibilities for detecting burnout and productivity?

    Mika Mantyla;Bram Adams;Giuseppe Destefanis;Daniel Graziotin

  • The Role of the Tester's Knowledge in Exploratory Software Testing

    Juha Itkonen;Mika V. M #x E;ntyl #x E;Casper Lassenius

  • Citations, research topics and active countries in software engineering

    Vahid Garousi;Mika V. Mäntylä

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

    Vahid Garousi;Michael Felderer;Mika V. Mäntylä

  • How do testers do it? An exploratory study on manual testing practices

    Juha Itkonen;Mika V. Mantyla;Casper Lassenius

Frequent Co-Authors

Casper Lassenius
Casper Lassenius Aalto University
Michael Felderer
Michael Felderer University of Cologne
Bram Adams
Bram Adams Queen's University
Kai Petersen
Kai Petersen Blekinge Institute of Technology
Dietmar Pfahl
Dietmar Pfahl University of Tartu
Marko Elovainio
Marko Elovainio University of Helsinki
Markku Oivo
Markku Oivo University of Oulu
Foutse Khomh
Foutse Khomh Polytechnique Montréal
Per Runeson
Per Runeson Lund University
Vassilis Kostakos
Vassilis Kostakos University of Melbourne

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 computer science degrees opens up a variety of career opportunities in the tech industry. If you’re looking for a fast-track option, consider a 2-year computer science degree online. These accelerated programs help you gain skills and credentials quickly, making them a great fit for career changers or recent graduates.

Computer science is closely linked with engineering and environmental fields. For example, students interested in sustainability might ask, what can I do with an environmental science degree? The answer includes roles in data analysis, GIS, and environmental technology—all of which leverage computer science concepts.

Interdisciplinary skills are increasingly valuable. Engineering degrees offered online, such as environmental engineering online degree programs, often blend technical knowledge with computer science, creating new pathways for those interested in solving real-world problems.

Finally, when planning your education, it’s important to consider cost. For engineering fields, you may want to review the mechanical engineering cost of education to compare affordability and potential return on investment, ensuring the pathway you choose fits both your interests and budget.

Best Scientists Citing Mika V. Mäntylä

Trending Scientists