World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
36
Citations
7391
World Ranking
11071
National Ranking
4601

Shamsi T. Iqbal 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 Shamsi T. Iqbal 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: 100 publications — 8th percentile

8% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Shamsi T. Iqbal 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 Shamsi T. Iqbal 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

Shamsi T. Iqbal is affiliated with Microsoft in the United States. Their research spans multiple fields, primarily focusing on computer science and social sciences, with notable work in subfields such as sociology and political science, human-computer interaction, cognitive neuroscience, social psychology, and computer science applications.

Their research output includes contributions to topics like innovative human-technology interaction, mobile crowdsensing and crowdsourcing, digital economy and work transformation, personal information management and user behavior, work-family balance challenges, emotion and mood recognition, and emotions and moral behavior.

Frequent co-authors in Shamsi T. Iqbal's work include Jina Suh, Mary Czerwinski, Javier Hernandez, Gonzalo Ramos, and Koustuv Saha.

Publication venues where they have regularly contributed are:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
  • IEEE Pervasive Computing

Some of the recent papers authored or co-authored by Shamsi T. Iqbal include:

  • "I Didn't Know I Looked Angry": Characterizing Observed Emotion and Reported Affect at Work, 2022, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • Sensing Wellbeing in the Workplace, Why and For Whom? Envisioning Impacts with Organizational Stakeholders, 2023, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Managing Tasks across the Work-Life Boundary: Opportunities, Challenges, and Directions, 2023, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
  • The Future of Work: COVID-19 and Beyond, 2021, IEEE Pervasive Computing
  • AI-Powered Reminders for Collaborative Tasks: Experiences and Futures, 2024, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Best Publications

  • Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction

    Saleema Amershi;Dan Weld;Mihaela Vorvoreanu;Adam Fourney

  • Task-evoked pupillary response to mental workload in human-computer interaction

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Xianjun Sam Zheng;Brian P. Bailey

  • Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Eric Horvitz

  • Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management

    Brian P. Bailey;Shamsi T. Iqbal

  • Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Piotr D. Adamczyk;Xianjun Sam Zheng;Brian P. Bailey

  • Notifications and awareness: a field study of alert usage and preferences

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Eric Horvitz

  • Effects of intelligent notification management on users and their tasks

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Brian P. Bailey

  • Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Brian P. Bailey

  • Email Duration, Batching and Self-interruption: Patterns of Email Use on Productivity and Stress

    Gloria Mark;Shamsi T. Iqbal;Mary Czerwinski;Paul Johns

  • Leveraging characteristics of task structure to predict the cost of interruption

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Brian P. Bailey

  • Oasis: A framework for linking notification delivery to the perceptual structure of goal-directed tasks

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Brian P. Bailey

  • Bored mondays and focused afternoons: the rhythm of attention and online activity in the workplace

    Gloria Mark;Shamsi T. Iqbal;Mary Czerwinski;Paul Johns

  • Break It Down: A Comparison of Macro- and Microtasks

    Justin Cheng;Jaime Teevan;Shamsi T. Iqbal;Michael S. Bernstein

  • Mobile taskflow in context: a screenshot study of smartphone usage

    Amy K. Karlson;Shamsi T. Iqbal;Brian Meyers;Gonzalo Ramos

  • Large Scale Analysis of Multitasking Behavior During Remote Meetings

    Hancheng Cao;Chia-Jung Lee;Shamsi Iqbal;Mary Czerwinski

  • Methods for supporting users with task continuity and completion across devices and time

    Eric Horvitz;Shamsi Tamara Iqbal;Amy Kathleen Karlson

  • Priming Drivers before Handover in Semi-Autonomous Cars

    Remo M.A. van der Heiden;Shamsi T. Iqbal;Christian P. Janssen

  • Gender differences and programming environments: across programming populations

    Margaret Burnett;Scott D. Fleming;Shamsi Iqbal;Gina Venolia

  • Understanding and developing models for detecting and differentiating breakpoints during interactive tasks

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Brian P. Bailey

  • Focused, Aroused, but so Distractible: Temporal Perspectives on Multitasking and Communications

    Gloria Mark;Shamsi Iqbal;Mary Czerwinski;Paul Johns

  • Effects of Individual Differences in Blocking Workplace Distractions

    Gloria Mark;Mary Czerwinski;Shamsi T. Iqbal

  • Sketching NLP: A Case Study of Exploring the Right Things To Design with Language Intelligence

    Qian Yang;Justin Cranshaw;Saleema Amershi;Shamsi T. Iqbal

  • Understanding Changes in Mental Workload during Task Execution

    Shamsi T. Iqbal;Piotr D. Adamczyk;Xianjun S. Zheng;Brian P. Bailey

Frequent Co-Authors

Jaime Teevan
Jaime Teevan Microsoft (United States)
Mary Czerwinski
Mary Czerwinski Microsoft (United States)
Brian P. Bailey
Brian P. Bailey University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Gloria Mark
Gloria Mark University of California, Irvine
Eric Horvitz
Eric Horvitz Microsoft (United States)
Paul N. Bennett
Paul N. Bennett Microsoft (United States)
Ivan Tashev
Ivan Tashev Microsoft (United States)
Linda Ng Boyle
Linda Ng Boyle University of Washington
Brent Hecht
Brent Hecht Northwestern 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 degrees online can open doors for many students, including those seeking flexible options or who need an affordable route to advance their education. For those just starting, an online associate's degree in computer science offers foundational knowledge and can be a stepping stone toward a bachelor’s or an entry-level tech job.

Budget is often a major concern. If you're looking to minimize expenses, researching the cheapest online degrees helps identify reputable institutions with lower tuition rates. This makes acquiring a degree more accessible, especially for students facing financial limitations.

Not every college requires top grades. There are numerous online colleges that accept low gpa, creating more opportunities for applicants who may not have a perfect academic record but still possess drive and potential.

Graduating with a computer science degree can lead to lucrative roles, but it’s not the only STEM field with high-paying jobs. For instance, see the range of high-paying jobs with environmental science degree holders, offering more career perspectives beyond tech.

Best Scientists Citing Shamsi T. Iqbal

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles