World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
36
Citations
9158
World Ranking
11015
National Ranking
693

Phillip Lord 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 Phillip Lord 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: 134 publications — 20th percentile

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

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

Phillip Lord 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 Phillip Lord 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: 36 D-Index — 23rd percentile

23% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Phillip Lord is affiliated with Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. Their research spans multiple fields, primarily focusing on Computer Science, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Social Sciences. Within these broader areas, they have contributed to subfields such as Molecular Biology, Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science, and Immunology.

Their work addresses topics including Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies, Semantic Web and Ontologies, Immunotherapy and Immune Responses, CAR-T cell therapy research, vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches, Research Data Management Practices, and Scientific Computing and Data Management.

Recent publications provide insight into the scope of their research interests. These include:

  • "Tolerogenic dendritic cell reporting: Has a minimum information model made a difference?" (2023) published in PeerJ
  • "Perspectives on tracking data reuse across biodata resources" (2024) published in Bioinformatics Advances
  • "Horned-OWL: Flying Further and Faster with Ontologies" (2024) published by Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (Schloss Dagstuhl)
  • "Identitas: Semantics-free and human-readable identifiers" (2021) published in Applied Ontology
  • "Religious Legitimacy" (2021) published in SSRN Electronic Journal

Frequent coauthors in their research collaborations include Alex Bateman, Chuming Chen, Ayesha Sahar, Ioana Nicorescu, and Gabrielle Barran. These collaborations reflect joint efforts across different specialties and interdisciplinary approaches.

Their work has been featured in a variety of publication venues, demonstrating diverse dissemination channels. These include:

  • PeerJ
  • Bioinformatics Advances
  • Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (Schloss Dagstuhl)
  • Applied Ontology
  • SSRN Electronic Journal

Best Publications

  • The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification.

    Dawn Field;George Garrity;Tanya Gray;Norman Morrison

  • Investigating semantic similarity measures across the Gene Ontology: the relationship between sequence and annotation.

    Phillip W. Lord;Robert D. Stevens;Andy Brass;Carole A. Goble

  • Taverna: lessons in creating a workflow environment for the life sciences

    Thomas M. Oinn;R. Mark Greenwood;Matthew Addis;M. Nedim Alpdemir

  • Semantic similarity in biomedical ontologies.

    Catia Pesquita;Daniel Faria;André O. Falcão;Phillip W. Lord

  • Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: the MIBBI project

    Chris F. Taylor;Chris F. Taylor;Dawn Field;Susanna Assunta Sansone;Susanna Assunta Sansone;Jan Aerts

  • The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations

    Anita Bandrowski;Ryan Brinkman;Mathias Brochhausen;Matthew H. Brush

  • Semantic Similarity Measures as Tools for Exploring the Gene Ontology

    Phillip W Lord;Robert D Stevens;Andy Brass;Carole A Goble

  • Cooking the semantic web with the OWL API

    Sean Bechhofer;Raphael Volz;Phillip Lord

  • Modeling biomedical experimental processes with OBI

    Ryan R Brinkman;Mélanie Courtot;Dirk Derom;Jennifer M Fostel

  • Exploring Williams--Beuren syndrome using myGrid

    R. D. Stevens;H. J. Tipney;C. J. Wroe;T. M. Oinn

  • Feta: a light-weight architecture for user oriented semantic service discovery

    Phillip Lord;Pinar Alper;Chris Wroe;Carole Goble

  • Agents in bioinformatics, computational and systems biology

    Emanuela Merelli;Giuliano Armano;Nicola Cannata;Flavio Corradini

  • Applying semantic web services to bioinformatics: experiences gained, lessons learnt

    Phillip Lord;Sean Bechhofer;Mark D. Wilkinson;Gary Schiltz

  • Taverna: lessons in creating a workflow environment for the life sciences: Research Articles

    Tom Oinn;Mark Greenwood;Matthew Addis;M. Nedim Alpdemir

  • Automating experiments using semantic data in a bioinformatics grid

    C. Wroe;C. Goble;M. Greenwood;P. Lord

  • Seven bottlenecks to workflow reuse and repurposing

    Antoon Goderis;Ulrike Sattler;Phillip Lord;Carole Goble

  • The my Grid ontology: bioinformatics service discovery

    K. Wolstencroft;P. Alper;D. Hull;C. Wroe

  • Cloud Computing for e-Science with CARMEN

    P Watson;P Lord;F Gibson;P Periorellis

  • Protein classification using ontology classification

    K. Wolstencroft;P. Lord;L. Tabernero;A. Brass

  • Treating Shimantic Web Syndrome with Ontologies

    D Hull;R Stevens;P Lord;Christopher Wroe

  • Ontologies in Bioinformatics

    Robert Stevens;Chris Wroe;Phillip W. Lord;Carole A. Goble

Frequent Co-Authors

Carole Goble
Carole Goble University of Manchester
Luc Moreau
Luc Moreau King's College London
Simon Miles
Simon Miles King's College London
Sean Bechhofer
Sean Bechhofer University of Manchester
Catharien M. U. Hilkens
Catharien M. U. Hilkens Newcastle University
Susanna-Assunta Sansone
Susanna-Assunta Sansone University of Oxford
Ulrike Sattler
Ulrike Sattler University of Manchester
David De Roure
David De Roure University of Oxford
Chris F. Taylor
Chris F. Taylor European Bioinformatics Institute
Jun Zhao
Jun Zhao University of Oxford

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 opens the door to a variety of online degree options and career pathways in STEM fields. If you are passionate about building machines or understanding advanced technologies, consider pursuing online mechanical engineering degrees. These programs are ideal for students who want flexible learning options while preparing for roles in design, manufacturing, and robotics.

For those interested in theoretical and applied science, enrolling in a cheapest online physics degree can offer a strong foundation in scientific principles. This pathway is especially valuable for learners seeking affordability without compromising on academic rigor.

The growing demand for expertise in data-driven decision making makes data science degrees an attractive choice. Graduates can pursue roles in analytics, business intelligence, and artificial intelligence across diverse industries.

Alternatively, students looking for specialization in the technology sector may benefit from enrolling in one of the best online electrical engineering programs USA. This field leads to opportunities in electronics, power systems, and communications.

Best Scientists Citing Phillip Lord

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles