World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
41
Citations
12981
World Ranking
8605
National Ranking
147

Paul Wouters 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 Paul Wouters 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: 125 publications — 17th percentile

17% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Paul Wouters 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 Paul Wouters 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: 41 D-Index — 40th percentile

40% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Paul Wouters is affiliated with Leiden University in the Netherlands and primarily works within the Social Sciences. Their research spans multiple subfields including Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty; Communication; Sociology and Political Science; Statistical and Nonlinear Physics; and Management of Technology and Innovation.

Their scientific output demonstrates a focus on scientometrics and bibliometrics research, with considerable engagement in topics such as Complex Network Analysis Techniques, Wikis in Education and Collaboration, Digital Marketing and Social Media, Knowledge Management and Sharing, Misinformation and Its Impacts, and University-Industry-Government Innovation Models.

Among the frequent collaborators are Zhichao Fang, Rodrigo Costas, Loet Leydesdorff, Lin Zhang, and Wencan Tian, reflecting a diverse and interdisciplinary network of co-authors.

Their recent publications illustrate a consistent contribution to the understanding of scholarly communication and citation analysis. Notable papers include:

  • User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis, 2022, Scientometrics
  • How is science clicked on Twitter? Click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications, 2021, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
  • Trajectories and regimes in research versus knowledge evaluations: Contributions to an evolutionary theory of citation, 2022, El Profesional de la Informacion
  • Trajectories and Regimes in Research and Knowledge Evaluations: Contributions to an Evolutionary Theory of Citation?, 2022, SSRN Electronic Journal
  • Editorial: A tribute to Loet Leydesdorff by his coauthors and friends, 2025, Scientometrics

Wouters' work has been published extensively in journals such as Scientometrics, which accounts for a majority of their contributions, as well as appearances in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, El Profesional de la Informacion, and SSRN Electronic Journal.

Best Publications

  • Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics

    Diana Hicks;Paul Wouters;Ludo Waltman;Sarah de Rijcke

  • Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories

    Dag W. Aksnes;Liv Langfeldt;Paul Wouters

  • Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective

    Rodrigo Costas;Zohreh Zahedi;Paul Wouters

  • The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management

    James Wilsdon;Liz Allen;Eleonora Belfiore;Philip Campbell

  • How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of `alternative metrics' in scientific publications

    Zohreh Zahedi;Rodrigo Costas;Paul Wouters

  • The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

    Ludo Waltman;Clara Calero-Medina;Joost Kosten;Ed C.M. Noyons

  • Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use : a literature review

    S De Rijcke;P F Wouters;A D Rushforth;T P Franssen

  • How well developed are Altmetrics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications

    Z. Zahedi;R. Costas;P.F. Wouters;J. Gorraiz

  • The citation culture

    P.F. Wouters

  • Promoting Access to Public Research Data for Scientific, Economic, and Social Development

    Peter W. Arzberger;Peter Schroeder;Anne Beaulieu;Geoffrey C. Bowker

  • How well developed are Altmetrics? Cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of alternative metrics in scientific publications?

    Zohreh Zahedi;Rodrigo Costas;Paul Wouters

  • Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be

    Rob Timans;Paul Wouters;Johan Heilbron

  • Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century

    Rodrigo Costas;Paul Wouters

  • An International Framework to Promote Access to Data

    Peter Arzberger;Peter Schroeder;Anne Beaulieu;Geof Bowker

  • Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators--a state-of-the-art report

    Loet Leydesdorff;Paul Wouters;Lutz Bornmann

  • Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data

    Ad A.M. Prins;Rodrigo Costas;Thed N. van Leeuwen;Paul F. Wouters

  • An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics

    Zhichao Fang;Rodrigo Costas;Rodrigo Costas;Wencan Tian;Xianwen Wang

  • The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations

    Rodrigo Costas;Zohreh Zahedi;Paul Wouters

  • Translating upwards : linking the neural and social sciences via neuroeconomics

    Clément Levallois;John A. Clithero;Paul Wouters;Ale Smidts

  • Has Price's dream come true: Is scientometrics a hard science?

    Paul Wouters;Loet Leydesdorff

  • Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators

    Loet Leydesdorff;Paul Wouters;Lutz Bornmann

Frequent Co-Authors

Rodrigo Costas
Rodrigo Costas Leiden University
Loet Leydesdorff
Loet Leydesdorff University of Amsterdam
Ludo Waltman
Ludo Waltman Leiden University
Thed N. van Leeuwen
Thed N. van Leeuwen Leiden University
Nees Jan van Eck
Nees Jan van Eck Leiden University
Ismael Rafols
Ismael Rafols Leiden University
Ale Smidts
Ale Smidts Erasmus University Rotterdam
Mike Thelwall
Mike Thelwall University of Sheffield
Scott A. Huettel
Scott A. Huettel Duke University
Cassidy R. Sugimoto
Cassidy R. Sugimoto Indiana 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

If you’re considering a future in computer science, exploring related online degrees and career pathways can open more doors. Many students pursue interdisciplinary studies or complementary fields to increase their job prospects and adaptability in the tech-driven market.

For those interested in accelerated learning, an accelerated computer science degree offers a fast-track path to graduation without sacrificing quality. This option allows you to enter the workforce sooner and begin applying your knowledge immediately.

Computer science skills are also valuable in fields like environmental science and engineering. A focus on data analysis and modeling can complement an environmental science degree—ideal if you're passionate about solving real-world sustainability issues. Similarly, studying at reputable environmental engineering schools online blends technical expertise with a drive to improve our natural surroundings.

Engineering is another strong pathway. Getting a mechanical engineering degree online cost effectively often means flexible study options and affordable tuition, giving you access to in-demand skills for diverse industries.

Best Scientists Citing Paul Wouters

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles