23

I know it's rather difficult to establish a ranking of publications, especially because the ones in charge of establishing values for venues might be biased by their field, and several other aspects. However, I know some well-accepted (at least locally) ranking, that consider all fields under research, e.g. Brazilian Qualis - in portuguese - that includes both confs and journals, and Australian ERA - this latter has served as baseline for some class A conferences in Computer Science (my research field), in some countries other than Australia.

Hence, I wonder about the existence of another "global ranking", that has been applied overseas, thus including at least the most prominent events and journals in every field. For journals, it's a little bit easier to measure its importance, by looking at their Impact Factor values, but for conferences it's a little bit tough. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know a largely-applied means of measuring the impact of a conf.

I'd like to hear from you. Thanks in advance.

ShadowWarrior
  • 4,645
  • 2
  • 31
  • 46
Ivan Machado
  • 989
  • 7
  • 16

4 Answers4

6

In Computer Science, CiteSeerX used to provide a Venue Impact Factor, that included journals and conferences, but it seems they've stopped doing it. As indicated by Gopi, Microsoft academic Research is some kind of global ranking, and JeffE also mentions google.scholar.

That being said, a global ranking, across sub-fields, is not necessarily meaningful. For instance, if one does not work on programming languages, then it's unlikely to submit a paper at POPL (the first venue according to CiteseerX). Hence, I'd say that field-specific rankings matter more, for instance in security: http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/guofei/sec_conf_stat.htm or https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/changyu.dong/ranking.html.

  • 5
    Google Scholar has a similar ranking, using a different algorithm to compute impact; for example: http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_venues&vq=acm. (Search only looks for words in the journal/conference title.) Needless to say, the two rankings are wildly inconsistent. Personally I find both of them deeply suspect. See also http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/87/is-google-scholar-metrics-for-real/#Item_0 – JeffE Apr 20 '12 at 09:34
  • The first link (in CiteSeerX) seems to have been relocated - any ideas what the new link is? – TCSGrad Mar 18 '13 at 18:58
  • @TCSGrad: Nope, it doesn't seem to exist any longer. –  Mar 18 '13 at 19:41
  • I am not sure how CiteseerX is benefical. It provides nothing. I see Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) is the most comprehensive tool out there on conference/journal level. Google scholar is good in calculating # of citations for a given paper. Bur really, how can I know the top conferences? – seteropere Mar 19 '13 at 16:00
  • @seteropere: Citeseer no longer provides a ranking. As I said in my answer, having a global ranking in CS is not meaningful. You better look for some ranking in your own sub-field, e.g., software engineering, or database, or security, etc. –  Mar 19 '13 at 16:33
4

It is not perfect (I have found many conference from my field not listed under the right subfield) nor exhaustive, but I have often found Microsoft academic Research useful.

Furthermore it has the great advantage to give ranking for both journal and conference and to cover many domains (Agriculture Science, Arts & Humanities, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics & Business, Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Geosciences, Material Science, Mathematics, Medicine, Physics, Social Science)

Gopi
  • 514
  • 3
  • 8
4

The following national rankings were used as a baseline in the construction of the Finnish ranking. Hence they are "global" in the sense that they have been at least somewhat useful abroad:

Jukka Suomela
  • 6,502
  • 2
  • 28
  • 32
1

It varies by discipline. In Medicine, conferences are not as important as journal articles.

In Computer science, [some] conferences are very prestigious

userJT
  • 3,005
  • 2
  • 22
  • 30