World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
31
Citations
5285
World Ranking
13489
National Ranking
102

Richard Torkar 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 Richard Torkar 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: 124 publications — 16th percentile

16% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Richard Torkar 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 Richard Torkar 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: 31 D-Index — 6th percentile

6% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Richard Torkar is affiliated with the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Their research primarily falls within the field of Computer Science, with a particular focus on Information Systems, Computer Science Applications, Software, Artificial Intelligence, and Epidemiology.

Their work encompasses several main topics including Software Engineering Research, Software Engineering Techniques and Practices, Open Source Software Innovations, Software Reliability and Analysis Research, Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment, Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies, and Occupational Health and Safety Research.

Frequent publication venues for Torkar include arXiv (Cornell University), Empirical Software Engineering, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Research Square, and Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research).

Recent papers authored by or involving Richard Torkar are:

  • Pandemic programming, 2020, Empirical Software Engineering
  • On Using Grey Literature and Google Scholar in Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering, 2020, IEEE Access
  • Pandemic Programming: How COVID-19 affects software developers and how their organizations can help, 2020, PubMed
  • Applying Bayesian Analysis Guidelines to Empirical Software Engineering Data: The Case of Programming Languages and Code Quality, 2022, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
  • Early detection of sepsis using artificial intelligence: a scoping review protocol, 2021, Systematic Reviews

Richard Torkar has collaborated frequently with several coauthors, including:

  • Robert Feldt
  • Carlo A. Furia
  • Terese Besker
  • Sebastian Baltes
  • Ivana Pepic

Best Publications

  • Software fault prediction metrics

    Danijel Radjenović;Marjan Heričko;Richard Torkar;Aleš Živkovič

  • A systematic review of search-based testing for non-functional system properties

    Wasif Afzal;Richard Torkar;Robert Feldt

  • Towards innovation measurement in the software industry

    Henry Edison;Nauman Bin Ali;Richard Torkar

  • Pandemic programming: How COVID-19 affects software developers and how their organizations can help.

    Paul Ralph;Sebastian Baltes;Gianisa Adisaputri;Richard Torkar;Richard Torkar

  • A systematic review on strategic release planning models

    Mikael Svahnberg;Tony Gorschek;Robert Feldt;Richard Torkar

  • Knowledge transfer challenges and mitigation strategies in global software development—A systematic literature review and industrial validation

    Srinivas Nidhra;Muralidhar Yanamadala;Wasif Afzal;Richard Torkar;Richard Torkar

  • Overcoming the Equivalent Mutant Problem: A Systematic Literature Review and a Comparative Experiment of Second Order Mutation

    Lech Madeyski;Wojciech Orzeszyna;Richard Torkar;Mariusz Jozala

  • Links between the personalities, views and attitudes of software engineers

    Robert Feldt;Lefteris Angelis;Richard Torkar;Maria Samuelsson

  • Prioritization of quality requirements: State of practice in eleven companies

    Richard Berntsson Svensson;Tony Gorschek;Bjorn Regnell;Richard Torkar

  • Quality Requirements in Industrial Practice—An Extended Interview Study at Eleven Companies

    Richard Berntsson Svensson;T. Gorschek;B. Regnell;R. Torkar

  • Towards individualized software engineering: empirical studies should collect psychometrics

    Robert Feldt;Richard Torkar;Lefteris Angelis;Maria Samuelsson

  • Review: On the application of genetic programming for software engineering predictive modeling: A systematic review

    Wasif Afzal;Richard Torkar

  • REQUIREMENTS TRACEABILITY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND INDUSTRY CASE STUDY

    Richard Torkar;Tony Gorschek;Robert Feldt;Mikael Svahnberg

  • Software test process improvement approaches

    Wasif Afzal;Snehal Alone;Kerstin Glocksien;Richard Torkar

  • Searching for Cognitively Diverse Tests: Towards Universal Test Diversity Metrics

    R. Feldt;R. Torkar;T. Gorschek;W. Afzal

  • Group development and group maturity when building agile teams: A qualitative and quantitative investigation at eight large companies

    Lucas Gren;Richard Torkar;Robert Feldt

  • Group development and group maturity when building agile teams

    Lucas Gren;Richard Torkar;Robert Feldt

  • A survey on testing and reuse

    R. Torkar;S. Mankefors

  • Solutions in global software engineering: A systematic literature review

    Stefan Schneider;Richard Torkar;Richard Torkar;Tony Gorschek

  • Adopting free/libre/open source software practices, techniques and methods for industrial use

    Richard Torkar;Pau Minoves;Janina Garrigós

  • On Using Grey Literature and Google Scholar in Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering

    Affan Yasin;Rubia Fatima;Lijie Wen;Wasif Afzal

  • The prospects of a quantitative measurement of agility: A validation study on an agile maturity model

    Lucas Gren;Richard Torkar;Robert Feldt

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert Feldt
Robert Feldt Chalmers University of Technology
Tony Gorschek
Tony Gorschek Blekinge Institute of Technology
Kai Petersen
Kai Petersen Blekinge Institute of Technology
Burak Turhan
Burak Turhan Monash University
Lionel C. Briand
Lionel C. Briand University of Ottawa
Shin Yoo
Shin Yoo Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Michael Felderer
Michael Felderer University of Cologne
Björn Regnell
Björn Regnell Lund University
Lefteris Angelis
Lefteris Angelis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Gregorio Robles
Gregorio Robles King Juan Carlos 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 the door to numerous online degree and career options. To make education more accessible, many of the cheapest online colleges offer credible computer science programs that don’t compromise on quality. This is ideal for students seeking value while avoiding excessive debt.

Academic requirements are becoming more flexible too. For those with a lower GPA, there are reputable online colleges that accept 2.0 gpa, making education more inclusive and breaking down barriers for returning or non-traditional students.

Computer science degrees can also serve as a springboard to specialized fields. For instance, understanding data and technology is increasingly important in environmental roles. If you’re curious about broader options, see what doors open with an environmental science degree—a popular field that also embraces online learning models.

Lastly, those eager to fast-track their careers can consider enrolling in a accelerated computer science degree online, allowing for quicker entry into in-demand tech jobs. These flexible options cater to diverse learning needs and career aspirations in today’s digital age.

Best Scientists Citing Richard Torkar

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles