World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Patrick De Causmaecker

Patrick De Causmaecker

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
33
Citations
5581
World Ranking
12545
National Ranking
116

Patrick De Causmaecker 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 Patrick De Causmaecker 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: 255 publications — 64th percentile

64% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Patrick De Causmaecker 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 Patrick De Causmaecker 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: 33 D-Index — 13th percentile

13% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • The State of the Art of Nurse Rostering

    Edmund K. Burke;Patrick De Causmaecker;Greet Vanden Berghe;Hendrik Van Landeghem

  • A Memetic Approach to the Nurse Rostering Problem

    Edmund Burke;Peter Cowling;Patrick De Causmaecker;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • A Hybrid Tabu Search Algorithm for the Nurse Rostering Problem

    Edmund K. Burke;Patrick De Causmaecker;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • A guide to web tools to prioritize candidate genes

    Léon-Charles Tranchevent;Francisco Bonachela Capdevila;Daniela Nitsch;Bart De Moor

  • A categorisation of nurse rostering problems

    Patrick Causmaecker;Greet Berghe

  • A multi-objective approach for robust airline scheduling

    Edmund K. Burke;Patrick De Causmaecker;Geert De Maere;Jeroen Mulder

  • Variable neighborhood search for nurse rostering problems

    Edmund Burke;Patrick De Causmaecker;Sanja Petrovic;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • A hybrid tabu search algorithm for automatically assigning patients to beds

    Peter Demeester;Wouter Souffriau;Patrick De Causmaecker;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • The first international nurse rostering competition 2010

    Stefaan Haspeslagh;Patrick De Causmaecker;Andrea Schaerf;Martin Stølevik

  • Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling IV

    Edmund Burke;Patrick De Causmaecker

  • METAHEURISTICS FOR HANDLING TIME INTERVAL COVERAGE CONSTRAINTS IN NURSE SCHEDULING

    Edmund K. Burke;Patrick De Causmaecker;Sanja Petrovic;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • Context and Adaptivity in Pervasive Computing Environments: Links with Software Engineering and Ontological Engineering

    Ahmet Soylu;Patrick De Causmaecker;Piet Desmet

  • Local search neighbourhoods for dealing with a novel nurse rostering model

    Burak Bilgin;Patrick De Causmaecker;Benoît Rossie;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • An unbiased evaluation of gene prioritization tools

    Daniela Börnigen;Léon-Charles Tranchevent;Francisco Bonachela-Capdevila;Koenraad Devriendt

  • A decomposed metaheuristic approach for a real-world university timetabling problem

    Patrick De Causmaecker;Peter Demeester;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • Fitness evaluation for nurse scheduling problems

    E.K. Burke;P. De Causmaecker;S. Petrovic;G.V. Berghe

  • Good Laboratory Practice for optimization research

    Graham Kendall;Ruibin Bai;Jacek Blazewicz;Patrick De Causmaecker

  • An automatic algorithm selection approach for the multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem

    Tommy Messelis;Patrick De Causmaecker

  • An intelligent hyper-heuristic framework for CHeSC 2011

    Mustafa Mısır;Katja Verbeeck;Patrick De Causmaecker;Greet Vanden Berghe

  • A hyperheuristic approach to examination timetabling problems: benchmarks and a new problem from practice

    Peter Demeester;Burak Bilgin;Patrick Causmaecker;Greet Berghe

  • A Combinatorial Benders׳ decomposition for the lock scheduling problem

    Unknown

  • A guide to web tools to prioritize candidate genes: How to efficiently choose the tools that match your needs?

    Léon-Charles Tranchevent;Francisco Bonachela Capdevila;Daniela Nitsch;Bart De Moor

Frequent Co-Authors

Edmund K. Burke
Edmund K. Burke Bangor University
Frits C. R. Spieksma
Frits C. R. Spieksma Eindhoven University of Technology
Andrea Schaerf
Andrea Schaerf University of Udine
Ann Nowé
Ann Nowé Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Bart De Moor
Bart De Moor KU Leuven
Rong Qu
Rong Qu University of Nottingham
Mario Vanhoucke
Mario Vanhoucke Ghent University
Yves Moreau
Yves Moreau KU Leuven

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 related fields can greatly enhance your prospects after studying Computer Science in the USA. Many students also consider online electrical engineering career outcomes, as this field often overlaps with computer science in areas like robotics, embedded systems, and hardware design. These career pathways offer lucrative roles in technology-driven industries.

For those seeking faster entry into the workforce, there are quick certifications that pay well. These certificates can boost your skillset in areas like cybersecurity, cloud computing, or data analytics and often require much less time compared to traditional degrees.

If you’re interested in continuing your education while working, you might want to look into graduate programs such as the shortest masters degree programs online. These accelerated options help you earn a master’s degree faster, supporting career advancement without long-term commitment.

Finally, choosing masters degrees that are worth it ensures your investment results in better job opportunities and higher earning potential. Programs in computer science, electrical engineering, and related fields remain in high demand, making them a smart choice for long-term success.

Best Scientists Citing Patrick De Causmaecker

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles