World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
41
Citations
9533
World Ranking
8676
National Ranking
523

Pete Sawyer 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 Pete Sawyer 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: 180 publications — 38th percentile

38% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Pete Sawyer 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 Pete Sawyer 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

Pete Sawyer is affiliated with Aston University in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily falls within the field of Computer Science, with significant contributions to subfields including Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science, and Software.

Their recent publications cover various interdisciplinary themes and have appeared in several scholarly venues. These include:

  • Decision-making under uncertainty: be aware of your priorities, 2022, Software & Systems Modeling
  • Assessment of non-directed computer-use behaviours in the home can indicate early cognitive impairment: A proof of principle longitudinal study, 2022, Aging & Mental Health
  • A comparison of post-saccadic oscillations in European-Born and China-Born British University Undergraduates, 2020, PLoS ONE
  • A Bayesian network-based model to understand the role of soft requirements in technology acceptance, 2022, Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
  • Investigating the potential impact of values on requirements and software engineering, 2021, arXiv (Cornell University)

The main topics addressed by Pete Sawyer's work include:

  • Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Visual perception and processing mechanisms

Frequent publication venues for their work are:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Software & Systems Modeling
  • Aging & Mental Health
  • PLoS ONE
  • Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing

Collaborations have included multiple co-authors, with whom Pete Sawyer has published repeatedly. These frequent collaborators include:

  • Nelly Bencomo (6 publications)
  • Alistair Sutcliffe (4 publications)
  • Luis H. Garcia Paucar (2 publications)
  • Alistair C. Darby (2 publications)
  • Huma Samin (1 publication)

Best Publications

  • Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide

    Ian Sommerville;Pete Sawyer

  • Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control

    R. Bentley;J. A. Hughes;D. Randall;T. Rodden

  • Early aspects: a model for aspect-oriented requirements engineering

    A. Rashid;P. Sawyer;A. Moreira;J. Araujo

  • RELAX: Incorporating Uncertainty into the Specification of Self-Adaptive Systems

    Jon Whittle;Pete Sawyer;Nelly Bencomo;Betty H.C. Cheng

  • Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering

    Ian Sommerville;Pete Sawyer

  • A Goal-Based Modeling Approach to Develop Requirements of an Adaptive System with Environmental Uncertainty

    Betty H. Cheng;Pete Sawyer;Nelly Bencomo;Jon Whittle

  • Requirements-Aware Systems: A Research Agenda for RE for Self-adaptive Systems

    Pete Sawyer;Nelly Bencomo;Jon Whittle;Emmanuel Letier

  • RELAX: a language to address uncertainty in self-adaptive systems requirement

    Jon Whittle;Pete Sawyer;Nelly Bencomo;Betty H. C. Cheng

  • Requirements elicitation: Towards the unknown unknowns

    Alistair Sutcliffe;Pete Sawyer

  • Viewpoints for requirements elicitation: a practical approach

    I. Sommerville;P. Sawyer;S. Viller

  • Goal-Based Modeling of Dynamically Adaptive System Requirements

    H.J. Goldsby;P. Sawyer;N. Bencomo;B.H.C. Cheng

  • Requirements reflection: requirements as runtime entities

    Nelly Bencomo;Jon Whittle;Pete Sawyer;Anthony Finkelstein

  • Integrating ethnography into the requirements engineering process

    I. Sommerville;T. Rodden;P. Sawyer;R. Bentley

  • Survey of Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design Approaches

    Ruzanna Chitchyan;A. Rashid;P. Sawyer;A. Garcia

  • An Exploratory Study of Information Retrieval Techniques in Domain Analysis

    V. Alves;C. Schwanninger;L. Barbosa;A. Rashid

  • Architectural support for cooperative multiuser interfaces

    R. Bentley;T. Rodden;P. Sawyer;I. Sommerville

  • Requirements process improvement through the phased introduction of good practice

    Peter Sawyer;Ian Sommerville;Stephen Viller

  • Shallow knowledge as an aid to deep understanding in early phase requirements engineering

    P. Sawyer;P. Rayson;K. Cosh

  • Dynamically Adaptive Systems are Product Lines too: Using Model-Driven Techniques to Capture Dynamic Variability of Adaptive Systems

    Nelly Bencomo;Peter Sawyer;Gordon S. Blair;Paul Grace

  • Abnormalities of saccadic eye movements in dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment.

    Thomas D.W. Wilcockson;Thomas D.W. Wilcockson;Diako Mardanbegi;Baiqiang Xia;Simon Taylor

  • Software Requirements Engineering

    G. Kotonya;Peter Sawyer

Frequent Co-Authors

Ian Sommerville
Ian Sommerville University of St Andrews
Nelly Bencomo
Nelly Bencomo Durham University
Paul Rayson
Paul Rayson Lancaster University
Awais Rashid
Awais Rashid University of Bristol
Tom Rodden
Tom Rodden University of Nottingham
Alistair Sutcliffe
Alistair Sutcliffe University of Manchester
Jon Whittle
Jon Whittle Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Trevor J. Crawford
Trevor J. Crawford Lancaster University
Betty H. C. Cheng
Betty H. C. Cheng Michigan State University
Hans Gellersen
Hans Gellersen Aarhus 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

Exploring computer science in the USA opens doors to a range of related online programs and career-focused pathways. For students who want flexibility or need to balance other commitments, high-quality online options have become increasingly popular. For example, pursuing an online bachelor’s in electrical engineering can be an excellent supplement or alternative for those interested in both hardware and software fields.

Affordability and speed are other important factors to consider. If you’re looking for the cheapest data science masters in usa, or want to find the quickest cheapest masters degree, numerous programs can help you reach your goals without a long time commitment or high tuition fees.

Alternatively, those eager to join the workforce quickly might benefit from targeted certifications. There are many respected certifications for jobs in technology that pay well and can often be completed in months, making them a great option for career changers or upskilling.

Best Scientists Citing Pete Sawyer

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles