World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
30
Citations
4590
World Ranking
13995
National Ranking
75

Tayana Conte 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 Tayana Conte 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: 344 publications — 81st percentile

81% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Tayana Conte 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 Tayana Conte 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: 30 D-Index — 3rd percentile

3% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering

    Jorge Calmon de Almeida Biolchini;Paula Gomes Mian;Ana Candida Cruz Natali;Tayana Uchôa Conte

  • Social Barriers Faced by Newcomers Placing Their First Contribution in Open Source Software Projects

    Igor Steinmacher;Tayana Conte;Marco Aurélio Gerosa;David Redmiles

  • Naming the pain in requirements engineering

    D. Méndez Fernández;S. Wagner;M. Kalinowski;M. Felderer

  • Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers

    Igor Steinmacher;Tayana Uchoa Conte;Christoph Treude;Marco Aurelio Gerosa

  • Designing Personas with Empathy Map.

    Bruna Ferreira;Williamson Silva;Edson A. Oliveira;Tayana Conte

  • Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys

    Stefan Wagner;Daniel Méndez Fernández;Michael Felderer;Antonio Vetrò

  • Systematic Literature Reviews in Distributed Software Development: A Tertiary Study

    Anna Beatriz Marques;Rosiane Rodrigues;Tayana Conte

  • The hard life of open source software project newcomers

    Igor Steinmacher;Igor Scaliante Wiese;Tayana Conte;Marco Aurélio Gerosa

  • Understanding Development Process of Machine Learning Systems: Challenges and Solutions

    Elizamary de Souza Nascimento;Iftekhar Ahmed;Edson Oliveira;Marcio Piedade Palheta

  • What to expect, and how to improve online discussion forums: the instructors’ perspective

    Dhanielly P. R. de Lima;Marco Aurélio Gerosa;Tayana Uchôa Conte;José Francisco de Magalhães Netto

  • Web usability inspection technique based on design perspectives

    Tayana Conte;Jobson Massolar;Emilia Mendes;Guilherme Horta Travassos

  • Usability Evaluation Based on Web Design Perspectives

    Unknown

  • What Makes Agile Software Development Agile

    Marco Kuhrmann;Paolo Tell;Regina Hebig;Jil Ann Christin Klunder

  • Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering: Contemporary Problems, Causes, and Effects in Practice

    D. Méndez Fernández;S. Wagner;M. Kalinowski;M. Felderer

  • How has design thinking being used and integrated into software development activities? A systematic mapping

    Unknown

  • A Systematic Mapping Study on Research Contributions on UX Evaluation Technologies

    Unknown

  • The students' perspectives on applying design thinking for the design of mobile applications

    Natasha M. Costa Valentim;Williamson Silva;Tayana Conte

  • Preliminary Empirical Identification of Barriers Faced by Newcomers to Open Source Software Projects

    Igor Steinmacher;Ana Paula Chaves;Tayana Uchoa Conte;Marco Aurelio Gerosa

  • Bots for Pull Requests: The Good, the Bad, and the Promising

    Unknown

  • Usability and User Experience Evaluation of Learning Management Systems - A Systematic Mapping Study.

    Walter Takashi Nakamura;Elaine Harada Teixeira de Oliveira;Tayana Conte

Frequent Co-Authors

Igor Steinmacher
Igor Steinmacher Northern Arizona University
Rafael Prikladnicki
Rafael Prikladnicki Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
Guilherme Horta Travassos
Guilherme Horta Travassos Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Stefan Wagner
Stefan Wagner University of Stuttgart
Marco Aurélio Gerosa
Marco Aurélio Gerosa Northern Arizona University
Emilia Mendes
Emilia Mendes Aarhus University
Michael Felderer
Michael Felderer University of Cologne
José Carlos Maldonado
José Carlos Maldonado Universidade de São Paulo
Guenther Ruhe
Guenther Ruhe University of Calgary
David Redmiles
David Redmiles University of California, Irvine

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:

Best Scientists Citing Tayana Conte

Recently Published Articles