World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
54
Citations
15755
World Ranking
4476
National Ranking
271

Rob Procter 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 Rob Procter 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: 350 publications — 82nd percentile

82% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Rob Procter 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 Rob Procter 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: 54 D-Index — 69th percentile

69% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Rob Procter is affiliated with the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom and has contributed significantly to research at the intersection of computer science and social sciences. Their work spans various subfields including artificial intelligence, sociology and political science, health informatics, communication, and electrical and electronic engineering.

Their research interests are reflected in publication topics such as:

  • Topic Modeling
  • Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Ethics and Social Impacts of AI

Rob Procter's publication record includes frequent appearances in venues such as:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Procedia Computer Science
  • PLoS ONE
  • IEEE Security & Privacy
  • Data & Policy

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Procter include:

  • "Trust in the smart home: Findings from a nationally representative survey in the UK" (2020, PLoS ONE)
  • "Holding AI to Account: Challenges for the Delivery of Trustworthy AI in Healthcare" (2022, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction)
  • "Assessing physical access to healthy food across United Kingdom: A systematic review of measures and findings" (2021, Obesity Science & Practice)
  • "Global evidence on the rapid adoption of telemedicine in primary care during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol" (2022, Systematic Reviews)
  • "Evaluating the generalisability of neural rumour verification models" (2022, Information Processing & Management)

Collaborations with co-authors are frequent, with notable recurring partnerships including:

  • Maria Liakata
  • Miguel Arana-Catania
  • Yulan He
  • Arkaitz Zubiaga
  • Elena Kochkina

The breadth of Procter's work encompasses fundamental topics in artificial intelligence and its application to societal challenges, including healthcare and misinformation. Their engagement with advanced AI techniques and ethical issues contributes to multidisciplinary discourse bridging technical and social perspectives.

Best Publications

  • Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies

    Trisha Greenhalgh;Joseph Wherton;Chrysanthi Papoutsi;Jennifer Lynch

  • The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview.

    Ashly D. Black;Josip Car;Claudia Pagliari;Chantelle Anandan

  • Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey

    Arkaitz Zubiaga;Ahmet Aker;Kalina Bontcheva;Maria Liakata

  • Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads

    Arkaitz Zubiaga;Maria Liakata;Rob Procter;Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi

  • What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare

    Trisha Greenhalgh;Joe Wherton;Paul Sugarhood;Sue Hinder

  • Reading the riots on Twitter: methodological innovation for the analysis of big data

    Robert N. Procter;Farida Vis;Alex Voss

  • SemEval-2017 Task 8: RumourEval: Determining rumour veracity and support for rumours

    Leon Derczynski;Kalina Bontcheva;Maria Liakata;Rob Procter

  • Making a Case in Medical Work: Implications forthe Electronic Medical Record

    Mark Hartswood;Rob Procter;Mark Rouncefield;Roger Slack

  • Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications

    Rob Procter;Robin Williams;James Stewart;Meik Poschen

  • Tweeting the terror: modelling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack

    Pete Burnap;Matthew L. Williams;Luke Sloan;Omer Rana

  • Exploiting Context for Rumour Detection in Social Media

    Arkaitz Zubiaga;Maria Liakata;Maria Liakata;Rob Procter;Rob Procter

  • Analysing the role of complexity in explaining the fortunes of technology programmes: Empirical application of the NASSS framework

    Trisha Greenhalgh;Joe Wherton;Chrysanthi Papoutsi;Jenni Lynch

  • Reading the riots: what were the police doing on Twitter?

    Rob Procter;Jeremy Crump;Susanne Karstedt;Alex Voss

  • Configuring User-designer Relations Interdisciplinary Perspectives

    Alex Voss;Mark Hartswood;Rob Procter;Mark Rouncefield

  • What is quality in assisted living technology? : the ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services

    Trisha Greenhalgh;Rob Procter;Joe Wherton;Paul Sugarhood

  • Expertise and Innovation: Information Technology Strategies in the Financial Services Sector

    Robin Fincham;Rob Procter;James Fleck

  • Collaboration and Trust in Healthcare Innovation: The eDiaMoND Case Study

    Marina Jirotka;Rob Procter;Mark Hartswood;Roger Slack

  • Co-realisation: towards a principled synthesis of ethnomethodology and participatory design

    Mark Hartswood;Rob Procter;Roger Slack;Alex Voß

  • Supporting Systematic Reviews Using Text Mining

    Sophia Ananiadou;Brian Rea;Naoaki Okazaki;Rob Procter

  • Learning Reporting Dynamics during Breaking News for Rumour Detection in Social Media.

    Arkaitz Zubiaga;Maria Liakata;Rob Procter

Frequent Co-Authors

Robin Williams
Robin Williams University of Edinburgh
Mark Rouncefield
Mark Rouncefield Lancaster University
Maria Liakata
Maria Liakata Queen Mary University of London
Arkaitz Zubiaga
Arkaitz Zubiaga Queen Mary University of London
Gill Harvey
Gill Harvey University of Adelaide
Kalina Bontcheva
Kalina Bontcheva University of Sheffield
Trisha Greenhalgh
Trisha Greenhalgh University of Oxford
Harry Scarbrough
Harry Scarbrough City, University of London
David De Roure
David De Roure University of Oxford
Alistair Sutcliffe
Alistair Sutcliffe University of Manchester

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 the field of computer science in the USA opens doors to a variety of related online degrees and flexible career options. For those looking to deepen their technical expertise, pursuing an online master’s in electrical engineering degree can be a valuable next step, providing strong interdisciplinary skills relevant to both hardware and software industries.

If you're seeking quicker credentials or want to boost your employability rapidly, there are several easy certifications to get online. These certifications can help you stand out in the competitive tech landscape without needing to dedicate years to study.

For those eager to advance their qualifications in the shortest time possible, you may consider the shortest online masters degree programs. These accelerated options let you gain advanced knowledge and credentials swiftly without compromising on quality.

Unsure which advanced study path to choose? Explore the what masters program should I do guide to discover sought-after graduate degrees that match current market demands and can maximize your future opportunities.

Best Scientists Citing Rob Procter

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles