World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
37
Citations
6500
World Ranking
10666
National Ranking
535

Walid Maalej 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 Walid Maalej 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: 143 publications — 24th percentile

24% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Walid Maalej 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 Walid Maalej 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: 37 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Walid Maalej is affiliated with Hasso Plattner Institute in Germany and specializes in the field of Computer Science. Their research spans multiple subfields including Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science Applications, Computer Networks and Communications, and Management Information Systems.

Maalej's work primarily focuses on areas within Software Engineering Research. Key topics include Software Engineering Techniques and Practices, Software System Performance and Reliability, Open Source Software Innovations, Quality and Supply Management, Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies, and Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection.

Among their recent papers are:

  • Empirical research on requirements quality: a systematic mapping study, 2022, Requirements Engineering
  • Content Analyses of User Comments in Journalism: A Systematic Literature Review Spanning Communication Studies and Computer Science, 2021, Digital Journalism
  • Generative AI in Software Engineering Must Be Human-Centered: The Copenhagen Manifesto, 2024, Journal of Systems and Software
  • Tailoring Requirements Engineering for Responsible AI, 2023, Computer
  • Efficient, Uncertainty-based Moderation of Neural Networks Text Classifiers, 2022, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022

Maalej has collaborated frequently with several co-authors:

  • Lloyd Montgomery
  • Abir Bouraffa
  • Davide Fucci
  • Lisa Scholz
  • Tim Puhlfürß

Their publications appear predominantly in the following venues:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Requirements Engineering
  • ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
  • IEEE Software

Best Publications

  • How Do Users Like This Feature? A Fine Grained Sentiment Analysis of App Reviews

    Emitza Guzman;Walid Maalej

  • User feedback in the appstore: An empirical study

    Dennis Pagano;Walid Maalej

  • Bug report, feature request, or simply praise? On automatically classifying app reviews

    Walid Maalej;Hadeer Nabil

  • On the automatic classification of app reviews

    Walid Maalej;Zijad Kurtanović;Hadeer Nabil;Christoph Stanik

  • Toward Data-Driven Requirements Engineering

    Walid Maalej;Maleknaz Nayebi;Timo Johann;Guenther Ruhe

  • Automatically Classifying Functional and Non-functional Requirements Using Supervised Machine Learning

    Zijad Kurtanovic;Walid Maalej

  • How do professional developers comprehend software

    Tobias Roehm;Rebecca Tiarks;Rainer Koschke;Walid Maalej

  • On the Comprehension of Program Comprehension

    Walid Maalej;Rebecca Tiarks;Tobias Roehm;Rainer Koschke

  • Patterns of Knowledge in API Reference Documentation

    W. Maalej;M. P. Robillard

  • SAFE: A Simple Approach for Feature Extraction from App Descriptions and App Reviews

    Timo Johann;Christoph Stanik;M B Alireza Alizadeh;Walid Maalej

  • Towards understanding and detecting fake reviews in app stores

    Daniel Martens;Walid Maalej

  • When users become collaborators: towards continuous and context-aware user input

    Walid Maalej;Hans-Jörg Happel;Asarnusch Rashid

  • Can development work describe itself

    Walid Maalej;Hans-Jorg Happel

  • Mining User Rationale from Software Reviews

    Zijad Kurtanovic;Walid Maalej

  • On the Socialness of Software

    Walid Maalej;Dennis Pagano

  • Potentials and challenges of recommendation systems for software development

    Hans-Jörg Happel;Walid Maalej

  • Social sensing: when users become monitors

    Raian Ali;Carlos Solis;Mazeiar Salehie;Inah Omoronyia

  • Us and them: a study of privacy requirements across north america, asia, and europe

    Swapneel Sheth;Gail Kaiser;Walid Maalej

  • Classifying Multilingual User Feedback using Traditional Machine Learning and Deep Learning

    Christoph Stanik;Marlo Haering;Walid Maalej

  • Democratic mass participation of users in Requirements Engineering

    Timo Johann;Walid Maalej

  • On the Comprehension of Program Comprehension.

    Walid Maalej;Rebecca Tiarks;Tobias Röhm;Rainer Koschke

Frequent Co-Authors

Alexander Felfernig
Alexander Felfernig Graz University of Technology
Andrew Begel
Andrew Begel Carnegie Mellon University
Guenther Ruhe
Guenther Ruhe University of Calgary
Rainer Koschke
Rainer Koschke University of Bremen
Bernd Bruegge
Bernd Bruegge Technical University of Munich
Xavier Franch
Xavier Franch Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
Didar Zowghi
Didar Zowghi University of Technology Sydney
Daniel Amyot
Daniel Amyot University of Ottawa
Martin Monperrus
Martin Monperrus Royal Institute of Technology
Jane Cleland-Huang
Jane Cleland-Huang University of Notre Dame

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 online associate degree programs is a great starting point for students interested in Computer Science. These flexible pathways allow you to earn foundational credits while balancing work and personal commitments.

Cost is an important factor for many learners. Fortunately, you can find cheap online college classes that make further education more accessible without sacrificing quality. This enables students to pursue degrees without financial strain.

If your academic record isn't perfect, don’t get discouraged. Research shows that there are best online colleges that accept low gpa, opening doors for students with varied backgrounds to advance their education.

Graduating with a Computer Science degree can lead to a variety of high-demand roles, but it’s not the only field with diverse opportunities. For example, see what’s possible with a science background by learning about jobs for environmental science majors. This can help you compare pathways and make informed career choices.

Best Scientists Citing Walid Maalej

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles