World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Tapio Salakoski

Tapio Salakoski

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
45
Citations
10014
World Ranking
7117
National Ranking
50

Tapio Salakoski 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 Tapio Salakoski 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: 236 publications — 58th percentile

58% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Tapio Salakoski 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 Tapio Salakoski 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: 45 D-Index — 51st percentile

51% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Tapio Salakoski is affiliated with the University of Turku in Finland. Their research primarily spans the field of Computer Science, with significant focus on Artificial Intelligence. Contributions also extend into subfields such as Computer Science Applications, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Molecular Biology, and Issues, Ethics, and Legal Aspects related to technology.

The topics covered in their research include Online Learning and Analytics, Topic Modeling, Educational Games and Gamification, Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods, Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation, Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education, and Machine Learning in Healthcare.

Tapio Salakoski has authored several papers in various academic venues. Recent publications include:

  • Artificial intelligence in nursing: Priorities and opportunities from an international invitational think-tank of the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership Collaborative, 2021, Journal of Advanced Nursing
  • Long Term Effects on Technology Enhanced Learning: The Use of Weekly Digital Lessons in Mathematics, 2020, Informatics in Education
  • Limits and Virtues of Educational Technology in Elementary School Mathematics, 2020, Journal of Educational Technology Systems
  • Neural Network and Random Forest Models in Protein Function Prediction, 2020, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
  • Assisting nurses in care documentation: from automated sentence classification to coherent document structures with subject headings, 2020, Journal of Biomedical Semantics

Frequent publication venues for Salakoski include Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, Natural Language Engineering, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Informatics in Education, and Journal of Educational Technology Systems.

The scientist often collaborates with other researchers, including Laura-Maria Peltonen, Sanna Salanterä, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Hans Moen, and Filip Ginter.

Best Publications

  • A large-scale evaluation of computational protein function prediction

    Predrag Radivojac;Wyatt T Clark;Tal Ronnen Oron;Alexandra M Schnoes

  • BioInfer: a corpus for information extraction in the biomedical domain

    Sampo Pyysalo;Filip Ginter;Juho Heimonen;Jari Björne

  • Distributional Semantics Resources for Biomedical Text Processing

    S Pyysalo;F Ginter;H Moen;T Salakoski

  • An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

    Yuxiang Jiang;Tal Ronnen Oron;Wyatt T. Clark;Asma R. Bankapur

  • The CAFA challenge reports improved protein function prediction and new functional annotations for hundreds of genes through experimental screens

    Naihui Zhou;Yuxiang Jiang;Timothy R. Bergquist;Alexandra J. Lee

  • All-paths graph kernel for protein-protein interaction extraction with evaluation of cross-corpus learning

    Antti Airola;Sampo Pyysalo;Jari Björne;Tapio Pahikkala

  • Artificial intelligence in nursing: Priorities and opportunities from an international invitational think-tank of the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership Collaborative

    Charlene Esteban Ronquillo;Charlene Esteban Ronquillo;Laura Maria Peltonen;Lisiane Pruinelli;Charlene H. Chu

  • Comparative analysis of five protein-protein interaction corpora

    Sampo Pyysalo;Antti Airola;Juho Heimonen;Jari Björne

  • An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

    Yuxiang Jiang;Tal Ronnen Oron;Wyatt T Clark;Asma R Bankapur

  • Extracting Complex Biological Events with Rich Graph-Based Feature Sets

    Jari Björne;Juho Heimonen;Filip Ginter;Antti Airola

  • Multilingual is not enough: BERT for Finnish

    Antti Virtanen;Jenna Kanerva;Rami Ilo;Jouni Luoma

  • An experimental comparison of cross-validation techniques for estimating the area under the ROC curve

    Antti Airola;Tapio Pahikkala;Willem Waegeman;Bernard De Baets

  • Regularized Machine Learning in the Genetic Prediction of Complex Traits

    Sebastian Okser;Tapio Pahikkala;Antti Airola;Tapio Salakoski

  • Complex event extraction at PubMed scale

    Jari Björne;Filip Ginter;Sampo Pyysalo;Jun'ichi Tsujii

  • Why complicate things?: introducing programming in high school using Python

    Linda Grandell;Mia Peltomäki;Ralph-Johan Back;Tapio Salakoski

  • Generalizing Biomedical Event Extraction

    Jari Björne;Tapio Salakoski

  • Large-scale event extraction from literature with multi-level gene normalization

    Sofie van Landeghem;Jari Björne;Jari Björne;Chih Hsuan Wei;Kai Hakala

  • What about a simple language? Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program

    Linda Mannila;Mia Peltomäki;Tapio Salakoski

  • VILLE: a language-independent program visualization tool

    Teemu Rajala;Mikko-Jussi Laakso;Erkki Kaila;Tapio Salakoski

  • Building the essential resources for Finnish: the Turku Dependency Treebank

    Katri Haverinen;Jenna Nyblom;Timo Viljanen;Veronika Laippala

  • SELECTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE SET OF STRUCTURES FROM BROOKHAVEN PROTEIN DATA-BANK

    Jorma Boberg;Tapio Salakoski;Mauno Vihinen

  • Additional file 1 of An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

    Yuxiang Jiang;Tal Ronnen Oron;Wyatt T. Clark;Asma R. Bankapur

Frequent Co-Authors

Filip Ginter
Filip Ginter University of Turku
Tapio Pahikkala
Tapio Pahikkala University of Turku
Sampo Pyysalo
Sampo Pyysalo University of Turku
Bernard De Baets
Bernard De Baets Ghent University
Hannu Tenhunen
Hannu Tenhunen Royal Institute of Technology
Christophe Dessimoz
Christophe Dessimoz University College London
Yves Van de Peer
Yves Van de Peer Ghent University
Mauno Vihinen
Mauno Vihinen Lund University
David T. Jones
David T. Jones University College London
Daisuke Kihara
Daisuke Kihara Purdue University West Lafayette

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 doors to a variety of online degrees and career opportunities. Those ready to advance in business management can consider affordable online executive mba cost options, which help tech professionals move into leadership roles.

For those interested in information, research, and digital resources, pursuing an online Master of Library and Information Science (mlis) can be a smart career move. These programs often focus on digital information management—an area closely connected to computer science.

If you're budget-conscious, numerous cheap online masters programs are available in fields related to computer science and beyond. These programs offer flexibility and affordability, making graduate education more accessible than ever.

Aspiring organizational leaders with a tech background may also explore advanced study through the cheapest online doctorate in organizational leadership, merging technical expertise with strategic leadership skills.

Best Scientists Citing Tapio Salakoski

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles