World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Engineering and Technology

D-Index
42
Citations
5766
World Ranking
6709
National Ranking
33

Muhammet Gul publication distribution in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Engineering and Technology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Muhammet Gul sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 20 scientists 48–57 publications: 35 scientists 58–67 publications: 96 scientists 68–77 publications: 135 scientists 78–87 publications: 190 scientists 88–97 publications: 259 scientists 98–107 publications: 283 scientists 108–117 publications: 369 scientists 118–127 publications: 341 scientists 128–137 publications: 386 scientists 138–147 publications: 372 scientists 148–157 publications: 457 scientists 158–167 publications: 415 scientists 168–177 publications: 407 scientists 178–187 publications: 421 scientists 188–197 publications: 378 scientists 198–207 publications: 403 scientists 208–217 publications: 317 scientists 218–227 publications: 346 scientists 228–237 publications: 321 scientists 238–247 publications: 260 scientists 248–257 publications: 280 scientists 258–267 publications: 240 scientists 268–277 publications: 214 scientists 278–287 publications: 242 scientists 288–297 publications: 203 scientists 298–307 publications: 166 scientists 308–317 publications: 154 scientists 318–327 publications: 175 scientists 328–337 publications: 159 scientists 338–347 publications: 99 scientists 348–357 publications: 131 scientists 358–367 publications: 106 scientists 368–377 publications: 118 scientists 378–387 publications: 97 scientists 388–397 publications: 108 scientists 398–407 publications: 82 scientists 408–417 publications: 71 scientists 418–427 publications: 64 scientists 428–437 publications: 55 scientists 438–447 publications: 54 scientists 448–457 publications: 60 scientists 458–467 publications: 47 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 30 scientists 488–497 publications: 29 scientists 498–507 publications: 38 scientists 508–517 publications: 40 scientists 518–527 publications: 32 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 28 scientists 548–557 publications: 23 scientists 558–567 publications: 19 scientists 568–577 publications: 16 scientists 578–587 publications: 17 scientists 588–597 publications: 18 scientists 598–607 publications: 22 scientists 608–617 publications: 15 scientists 618–627 publications: 9 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 21 scientists 648–657 publications: 12 scientists 658–667 publications: 9 scientists 668–677 publications: 11 scientists 678–687 publications: 9 scientists 688–697 publications: 6 scientists 698–707 publications: 14 scientists 708–717 publications: 7 scientists 718–727 publications: 8 scientists 728–737 publications: 10 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 5 scientists 758–767 publications: 5 scientists 768–777 publications: 11 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 2 scientists 798–803 publications: 4 scientists 804+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 804+

This scientist: 135 publications — 21st percentile

21% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 804 publications or more.

Muhammet Gul D-index placement in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Engineering and Technology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Muhammet Gul sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 59 scientists 31 D-Index: 114 scientists 32 D-Index: 129 scientists 33 D-Index: 189 scientists 34 D-Index: 200 scientists 35 D-Index: 262 scientists 36 D-Index: 311 scientists 37 D-Index: 312 scientists 38 D-Index: 350 scientists 39 D-Index: 385 scientists 40 D-Index: 348 scientists 41 D-Index: 362 scientists 42 D-Index: 426 scientists 43 D-Index: 380 scientists 44 D-Index: 310 scientists 45 D-Index: 341 scientists 46 D-Index: 301 scientists 47 D-Index: 306 scientists 48 D-Index: 271 scientists 49 D-Index: 246 scientists 50 D-Index: 210 scientists 51 D-Index: 253 scientists 52 D-Index: 213 scientists 53 D-Index: 221 scientists 54 D-Index: 195 scientists 55 D-Index: 186 scientists 56 D-Index: 170 scientists 57 D-Index: 167 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 144 scientists 60 D-Index: 152 scientists 61 D-Index: 141 scientists 62 D-Index: 138 scientists 63 D-Index: 131 scientists 64 D-Index: 118 scientists 65 D-Index: 114 scientists 66 D-Index: 119 scientists 67 D-Index: 95 scientists 68 D-Index: 87 scientists 69 D-Index: 77 scientists 70 D-Index: 89 scientists 71 D-Index: 69 scientists 72 D-Index: 54 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 55 scientists 75 D-Index: 54 scientists 76 D-Index: 49 scientists 77 D-Index: 53 scientists 78 D-Index: 46 scientists 79 D-Index: 28 scientists 80 D-Index: 39 scientists 81 D-Index: 36 scientists 82 D-Index: 24 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 36 scientists 85 D-Index: 18 scientists 86 D-Index: 25 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 26 scientists 89 D-Index: 27 scientists 90 D-Index: 23 scientists 91 D-Index: 15 scientists 92 D-Index: 12 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 15 scientists 95 D-Index: 10 scientists 96 D-Index: 13 scientists 97 D-Index: 13 scientists 98 D-Index: 9 scientists 99 D-Index: 7 scientists 100 D-Index: 7 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 7 scientists 103 D-Index: 7 scientists 104 D-Index: 9 scientists 105 D-Index: 6 scientists 106 D-Index: 9 scientists 107+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 107+

This scientist: 42 D-Index — 35th percentile

35% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 107 D-Index or more.

Best Publications

  • A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications

    Unknown

  • A comprehensive review of multi criteria decision making approaches based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets

    Erkan Celik;Muhammet Gul;Nezir Aydin;Alev Taskin Gumus

  • A comprehensive review of emergency department simulation applications for normal and disaster conditions

    Muhammet Gul;Ali Fuat Guneri

  • A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment

    Muhammet Gul;M. Fatih Ak

  • A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: A case study for aluminum industry

    Muhammet Gul;Muhammet Gul;Ali Fuat Guneri

  • A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions

    Muhammet Gul

  • Hospital service quality evaluation: an integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS

    Melih Yucesan;Muhammet Gul

  • Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR-based approach for safety risk assessment in mine industry.

    Muhammet Gul;M. Fatih Ak;Ali Fuat Guneri

  • AHP–TOPSIS integration extended with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for information security risk analysis

    M. Fatih Ak;Muhammet Gul

  • A fuzzy logic based PROMETHEE method for material selection problems

    Muhammet Gul;Erkan Celik;Alev Taskin Gumus;Ali Fuat Guneri

  • Application of Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods in occupational health and safety risk assessment: the case of a gun and rifle barrel external surface oxidation and colouring unit.

    Muhammet Gul

  • Occupational health and safety risk assessment in hospitals: A case study using two-stage fuzzy multi-criteria approach

    Muhammet Gul;M. Fatih Ak;Ali Fuat Guneri

  • A new Fine-Kinney-based risk assessment framework using FAHP-FVIKOR incorporation

    Muhammet Gul;Busra Guven;Ali Fuat Guneri

  • Hazard identification, risk assessment and control for dam construction safety using an integrated BWM and MARCOS approach under interval type-2 fuzzy sets environment

    Erkan Celik;Muhammet Gul

  • Risk assessment for clearing and grading process of a natural gas pipeline project: An extended TOPSIS model with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for prioritizing hazards

    Nurdan Ece Oz;Suleyman Mete;Faruk Serin;Muhammet Gul

  • An FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic sets for maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety

    Veysi Başhan;Hakan Demirel;Muhammet Gul

  • A modified failure modes and effects analysis using interval-valued spherical fuzzy extension of TOPSIS method: case study in a marble manufacturing facility

    Muhammet Gul;M. Fatih Ak

  • Fermatean fuzzy TOPSIS-based approach for occupational risk assessment in manufacturing

    Muhammet Gul;Huai-Wei Lo;Melih Yucesan

  • Evaluation of hospital disaster preparedness by a multi-criteria decision making approach: The case of Turkish hospitals

    Miguel Ortiz-Barrios;Muhammet Gul;Pedro López-Meza;Melih Yucesan

  • A holistic FMEA approach by fuzzy-based Bayesian network and best–worst method

    Melih Yucesan;Muhammet Gul;Erkan Celik

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:

Recently Published Articles