World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
35
Citations
8089
World Ranking
11476
National Ranking
4714

Patrick Gage Kelley 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 Gage Kelley 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: 86 publications — 5th percentile

5% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Patrick Gage Kelley 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 Gage Kelley 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: 35 D-Index — 20th percentile

20% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Patrick Gage Kelley is affiliated with the University of New Mexico in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields of study, with a focus on Computer Science and Social Sciences. Within these disciplines, their work touches on subfields such as Artificial Intelligence, Safety Research, Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science, and Human-Computer Interaction.

The main topics explored by Kelley include:

  • Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Impact of Technology on Adolescents

Kelley's publication record includes recent papers covering a range of subjects:

  • "It's common and a part of being a content creator": Understanding How Creators Experience and Cope with Hate and Harassment Online (2022), published at the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • Docosahexaenoic Acid Controls Pulmonary Macrophage Lipid Raft Size and Inflammation (2024), published in the Journal of Nutrition
  • Designing Toxic Content Classification for a Diversity of Perspectives (2021), published on arXiv (Cornell University)
  • How Knowledge Workers Think Generative AI Will (Not) Transform Their Industries (2023), published on arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Advancing Explainability Through AI Literacy and Design Resources (2023), published in interactions

Frequent collaborators of Kelley include:

  • Sunny Consolvo
  • Kurt Thomas
  • Allison Woodruff
  • Elie Bursztein
  • Tara Matthews

Kelley publishes mainly in venues such as:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Social Sciences
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • Journal of Nutrition
  • interactions

Best Publications

  • A "nutrition label" for privacy

    Patrick Gage Kelley;Joanna Bresee;Lorrie Faith Cranor;Robert W. Reeder

  • Guess Again (and Again and Again): Measuring Password Strength by Simulating Password-Cracking Algorithms

    P. G. Kelley;S. Komanduri;M. L. Mazurek;R. Shay

  • Of passwords and people: measuring the effect of password-composition policies

    Saranga Komanduri;Richard Shay;Patrick Gage Kelley;Michelle L. Mazurek

  • Understanding and capturing people's privacy policies in a mobile social networking application

    Norman Sadeh;Jason Hong;Lorrie Cranor;Ian Fette

  • A conundrum of permissions: installing applications on an android smartphone

    Patrick Gage Kelley;Sunny Consolvo;Lorrie Faith Cranor;Jaeyeon Jung

  • Encountering stronger password requirements: user attitudes and behaviors

    Richard Shay;Saranga Komanduri;Patrick Gage Kelley;Pedro Giovanni Leon

  • Privacy as part of the app decision-making process

    Patrick Gage Kelley;Lorrie Faith Cranor;Norman Sadeh

  • How does your password measure up? the effect of strength meters on password creation

    Blase Ur;Patrick Gage Kelley;Saranga Komanduri;Joel Lee

  • Measuring password guessability for an entire university

    Michelle L. Mazurek;Saranga Komanduri;Timothy Vidas;Lujo Bauer

  • Standardizing privacy notices: an online study of the nutrition label approach

    Patrick Gage Kelley;Lucian Cesca;Joanna Bresee;Lorrie Faith Cranor

  • Capturing location-privacy preferences: quantifying accuracy and user-burden tradeoffs

    Michael Benisch;Patrick Gage Kelley;Norman Sadeh;Lorrie Faith Cranor

  • Who's viewed you?: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application

    Janice Y. Tsai;Patrick Kelley;Paul Drielsma;Lorrie Faith Cranor

  • Location-Sharing Technologies: Privacy Risks and Controls

    Janice Y. Tsai;Patrick Gage Kelley;Lorrie Faith Cranor;Norman Sadeh

  • A Comparative Study of Online Privacy Policies and Formats

    Aleecia M. Mcdonald;Robert W. Reeder;Patrick Gage Kelley;Lorrie Faith Cranor

  • Empirical models of privacy in location sharing

    Eran Toch;Justin Cranshaw;Paul Hankes Drielsma;Janice Y. Tsai

  • Are you close with me? are you nearby?: investigating social groups, closeness, and willingness to share

    Jason Wiese;Patrick Gage Kelley;Lorrie Faith Cranor;Laura Dabbish

  • Correct horse battery staple: exploring the usability of system-assigned passphrases

    Richard Shay;Patrick Gage Kelley;Saranga Komanduri;Michelle L. Mazurek

  • "i read my Twitter the next morning and was astonished": a conversational perspective on Twitter regrets

    Manya Sleeper;Justin Cranshaw;Patrick Gage Kelley;Blase Ur

  • Capturing Social Networking Privacy Preferences

    Ramprasad Ravichandran;Michael Benisch;Patrick Gage Kelley;Norman M. Sadeh

  • SoK: Hate, Harassment, and the Changing Landscape of Online Abuse

    Kurt Thomas;Devdatta Akhawe;Michael Bailey;Dan Boneh

  • Standardizing Privacy Notices: An Online Study of the Nutrition Label Approach (CMU-CyLab-09-014)

    Patrick Gage Kelley;Lucian Cesca;Joanna Bresee;Lorrie Faith Cranor

  • Privacy as Part of the App Decision-Making Process (CMU-CyLab-13-003)

    Patrick Gage Kelley;Lorrie Faith Cranor;Norman Sadeh

  • Measuring Password Guessability for an Entire University (CMU-CyLab-13-013)

    Michelle L. Mazurek;Saranga Komanduri;Tim Vidas;Lujo Bauer

Frequent Co-Authors

Lorrie Faith Cranor
Lorrie Faith Cranor Carnegie Mellon University
Norman Sadeh
Norman Sadeh Carnegie Mellon University
Nicolas Christin
Nicolas Christin Carnegie Mellon University
Lujo Bauer
Lujo Bauer Carnegie Mellon University
Jason Hong
Jason Hong Carnegie Mellon University
Blase Ur
Blase Ur University of Chicago
Sunny Consolvo
Sunny Consolvo Google (United States)
Elie Bursztein
Elie Bursztein Google (United States)
Michael Bailey
Michael Bailey Georgia Institute of Technology
Zakir Durumeric
Zakir Durumeric University of California, Berkeley

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

Pursuing a Computer Science degree in the USA opens up various pathways, including flexible online options. Many students start their journey with an associate's degree online, which is both affordable and provides a solid foundation for further studies or entry-level tech jobs.

For those seeking advanced skills and higher earning potential, there are several most in demand masters degrees in fields like computer science, data analytics, and artificial intelligence. These programs are highly valued by employers and can help set you apart in a competitive job market.

Worried about tuition? It’s possible to earn a degree from one of the cheapest online colleges, allowing you to access quality education without a heavy financial burden.

If your academic record poses a challenge, there are also online graduate programs that accept 2.0 gpa, providing opportunities for students with lower GPAs to advance their education and career prospects.

Best Scientists Citing Patrick Gage Kelley

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles