<p>Usually, you should be able to figure out who are the leading researchers or research groups in your research area.</p>

<p>Everything else is then usually fairly straightforward: just find out in which conferences the leading researchers publish their work, and in which conferences they serve in programme committees, etc. Most likely those would be the most relevant conferences for your work as well.</p>

<p>The same applies to journals as well.</p>

<p>(Note that the most relevant conference is not necessarily the same as the most prestigious conference, but it might be a good idea to start with relevant conferences... Your work might have much more impact that way, even if it does not look that impressive in your CV.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T23:27:14.897Z
I agree Jukka. Ask a number of experts working in that field. See where the famous defining and groundbreaking papers of the field have been published. As an example, lets consider complexity theory, take a good book like Arora and Barak and check the bibliography, looking at a few pages you will see that STOC and FOCS stand out. This should give an idea about the top venues to publish.
Kaveh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-10T19:32:04.967Z
@Kaveh  I think everyone knows the top conferences STOC FOCS and for algorithms SODA,  then theres 2nd tier like ICALP, ALGO,  APPROX,  IPCO  and possibly others but now Idk much here
Hao S
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T15:49:39.770Z
2011-05-30T15:49:39.770Z
Jukka Suomela
<p>One possible ranking scheme is the so-called Australian Ranking of Computer Science Conferences: At the bottom of <a href="http://core.edu.au/index.php/categories/conference%20rankings/1" rel="nofollow">this page</a> you'll find various lists containing the data organised in different ways. For example, this <a href="http://core.edu.au/cms/images/downloads/conference/08sort%20acronymERA2010_conference_list.pdf" rel="nofollow">one</a> is ordered by acronym, and is probably the most useful. If the conference is not in the list, it is probably new and thus neither established or necessarily high quality. </p>

<p>Regarding the quality of the publication, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Citation_Index" rel="nofollow">SCI index</a> can tell you that sort of information. But this is unreliable for conferences published in LNCS, as some volumes are included and some are not. (There are tools and websites providing SCI data.)</p>

<p>Other things to look for are the number of editions the conference has had, whether it is a conference, symposium or workshop, whether it has ACM, IEEE, or other such sponsorship. None of these are particularly reliable metrics, though.</p>

<p>Finally, ask your colleagues in the field. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T17:33:45.710Z
For this one, keep in mind that it has a strong bias since it has been done by researchers from the same geographic area. Thus, some research fields are under represented due to this bias.
Sylvain Peyronnet
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T14:22:24.980Z
2011-05-30T14:22:24.980Z
Dave Clarke
<p>See <a href="https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/how-do-you-decide-when-you-have-enough-research-results-to-write-a-paper-and-to-w/6796#6796">my previous answer about journals</a>.  Same thing.  </p>

<p>Different communities withinin theory (like in every other subject) have <em>vastly</em> different opinions about the relative quality of publication venues.  The only way to judge the quality of a conference is to judge the quality of the research that is presented and published there, <strong>as viewed by the sub-community you want to impress</strong>.</p>

<p>If the only community you're trying to impress is a hiring/promotion committee, you're doing it wrong.  To get hired/promoted, you need strong letters from experts in your field that are recognized as such by hiring/promotion committees.  Figure out who <em>those</em> people are, and then go kick ass on <em>their</em> home turf.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-31T03:53:23.933Z
2011-05-31T22:01:11.273Z
2017-04-13T12:32:28.167Z
Jeffε
<p>Although not strictly a measure of quality, one easy way to judge the <em>perceived</em> quality of a conference is to look at its historical acceptance rate.  In Computer Science, many conference publications are considered terminal because they are so competitive.  The idea is that the "better" the conference, the more desirable it is to submit one's work, thus the more submissions it receives, thus lowering its acceptance rate. It is common for some highly competitive conferences to have acceptance rates well below 20%.  If we believe in the efficacy of peer review (<a href="https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2992/do-peer-reviewed-journals-enhance-the-quality-of-scientific-research">which may be a big "if"</a>), then the lower acceptance rate should correlate with "better" papers.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-01T12:16:38.530Z
This is certainly one of the measures the bean-counters use when assessing their academics.
Dave Clarke
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-01T12:11:55.880Z
2011-06-01T12:11:55.880Z
2017-04-13T12:46:46.700Z
ESultanik
<p>I recommend <a href="http://academic.research.microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Microsoft Academic Search</a>.  See for example: <a href="http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=3&amp;topDomainID=2&amp;subDomainID=1&amp;last=0&amp;start=1&amp;end=100" rel="nofollow">a ranking list for TCS conferences</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T16:38:11.350Z
I've tried it before (checking my own citations), and they were way way off, so I'm not sure how much I would trust their ranking at the moment.
Joe Fitzsimons
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T16:50:21.740Z
This ranking may not be good for physicists, but I, as a computer scientist, think that rankings for computer science are fairly reliable.
Snowie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T17:00:35.143Z
@Snowie: I just quickly checked the top-ranking conferences in my research area, distributed & parallel computing. Number 1 conference seems to be something called "Java Grande"... Let's not try to rely on any automatically-generated conference ranking.
Jukka Suomela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T17:13:34.813Z
@Snowie: It's just as bad for my TCS publications as my physics ones.
Joe Fitzsimons
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T19:49:19.230Z
Some of the things listed as conferences are book series. And the prestige ranking, while not completely wrong, isn't very good, either.
Peter Shor 
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-01T12:42:32.347Z
+1 I think it is useful as a first, quick, unreliable indication. Of course, whatever conclusions you might draw need to be crosschecked with other sources.
Serge Gaspers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T16:33:30.247Z
2011-05-30T16:33:30.247Z
Snowie
<p>I am a physicist working in TCS in a new group. I would like to know, given a conference (imagine your favorite ones),  how can I know the quality of this conference and also the quality of the journal where the proceedings will be pusblished (in case they are). I heard something about CORE classification but found no link or more information about. Thanks</p>

<p>P.S.: I find TCS stack exchange very interesting for TCS discussions (obviously). I just wonder if there is any similar stack exchange academic site for physics/chemistry. I found physics.stackexchange, but some questions related with journals were instantly classified as offtopic</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T14:23:21.493Z
How do you (personally) judge the quality of physics journals and conferences? CS has a much larger emphasis on conferences than in physics, but the basic idea is the same.
Joe Fitzsimons
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T14:29:05.697Z
In physics, conferences are not so important. For journals we just have a look at the journal impact factor, usually or to the number of citations
Open the way
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T14:41:36.867Z
@gpu_drug: I'm also a physicist, which is why I ask. To be honest, I have never chosen a journal or conference simply by looking up its impact factor. It's always been much more to do with their standing within the field, which isn't necessarily well reflected by their impact factor. A good example of this for TCS is the impact factor of STOC and FOCS, which according to places like ISI is very low, however these have a similar standing within TCS as Science and Nature have in physics.
Joe Fitzsimons
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T14:47:23.683Z
@gpu_drug: There is a physics stack exchange, but it is not research level. There is, however a proposal for a theoretical physics research level site here: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics If you're interested, please do commit so that it goes into beta as sooner.
Joe Fitzsimons
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T15:40:59.580Z
Could you please remove the links to the specific examples of conferences? We would like to avoid doing any conference-ranking here. (Also note that the examples that you gave aren't really TCS conferences; some of them seem to be very applied – this web site focuses on *theoretical* computer science.)
Jukka Suomela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T15:50:56.197Z
An easy rule of thumb: where are the *good* papers on your topic published (the ones you cite, or at least used in the preparation of your work)?
Sylvain
<soft-question><conferences>
Quality of a conference
Open the way
# Quality of a conference

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-05-30)

I am a physicist working in TCS in a new group. I would like to know, given a conference (imagine your favorite ones), how can I know the quality of this conference and also the quality of the journal where the proceedings will be pusblished (in case they are). I heard something about CORE classification but found no link or more information about. Thanks

P.S.: I find TCS stack exchange very interesting for TCS discussions (obviously). I just wonder if there is any similar stack exchange academic site for physics/chemistry. I found physics.stackexchange, but some questions related with journals were instantly classified as offtopic

**Tags:** soft-question, conferences

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: How do you (personally) judge the quality of physics journals and conferences? CS has a much larger emphasis on conferences than in physics, but the basic idea is the same.  
> **username_0**: In physics, conferences are not so important. For journals we just have a look at the journal impact factor, usually or to the number of citations  
> **username_1**: @gpu_drug: I'm also a physicist, which is why I ask. To be honest, I have never chosen a journal or conference simply by looking up its impact factor. It's always been much more to do with their standing within the field, which isn't necessarily well reflected by their impact factor. A good example of this for TCS is the impact factor of STOC and FOCS, which according to places like ISI is very low, however these have a similar standing within TCS as Science and Nature have in physics.  
> **username_1**: @gpu_drug: There is a physics stack exchange, but it is not research level. There is, however a proposal for a theoretical physics research level site here: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/23848/theoretical-physics If you're interested, please do commit so that it goes into beta as sooner.  
> **username_2**: Could you please remove the links to the specific examples of conferences? We would like to avoid doing any conference-ranking here. (Also note that the examples that you gave aren't really TCS conferences; some of them seem to be very applied – this web site focuses on *theoretical* computer science.)  
> **username_3**: An easy rule of thumb: where are the *good* papers on your topic published (the ones you cite, or at least used in the preparation of your work)?  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2011-05-30. Score: 11 | Accepted answer

Usually, you should be able to figure out who are the leading researchers or research groups in your research area.

Everything else is then usually fairly straightforward: just find out in which conferences the leading researchers publish their work, and in which conferences they serve in programme committees, etc. Most likely those would be the most relevant conferences for your work as well.

The same applies to journals as well.

(Note that the most relevant conference is not necessarily the same as the most prestigious conference, but it might be a good idea to start with relevant conferences... Your work might have much more impact that way, even if it does not look that impressive in your CV.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I agree Jukka. Ask a number of experts working in that field. See where the famous defining and groundbreaking papers of the field have been published. As an example, lets consider complexity theory, take a good book like Arora and Barak and check the bibliography, looking at a few pages you will see that STOC and FOCS stand out. This should give an idea about the top venues to publish.  
> **username_5**: @username_4  I think everyone knows the top conferences STOC FOCS and for algorithms SODA,  then theres 2nd tier like ICALP, ALGO,  APPROX,  IPCO  and possibly others but now Idk much here  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2011-05-31. Score: 10

See [my previous answer about journals](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/how-do-you-decide-when-you-have-enough-research-results-to-write-a-paper-and-to-w/6796#6796). Same thing.

Different communities withinin theory (like in every other subject) have *vastly* different opinions about the relative quality of publication venues. The only way to judge the quality of a conference is to judge the quality of the research that is presented and published there, **as viewed by the sub-community you want to impress**.

If the only community you're trying to impress is a hiring/promotion committee, you're doing it wrong. To get hired/promoted, you need strong letters from experts in your field that are recognized as such by hiring/promotion committees. Figure out who *those* people are, and then go kick ass on *their* home turf.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2011-05-30. Score: 9

One possible ranking scheme is the so-called Australian Ranking of Computer Science Conferences: At the bottom of [this page](http://core.edu.au/index.php/categories/conference%20rankings/1) you'll find various lists containing the data organised in different ways. For example, this [one](http://core.edu.au/cms/images/downloads/conference/08sort%20acronymERA2010_conference_list.pdf) is ordered by acronym, and is probably the most useful. If the conference is not in the list, it is probably new and thus neither established or necessarily high quality.

Regarding the quality of the publication, the [SCI index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Citation_Index) can tell you that sort of information. But this is unreliable for conferences published in LNCS, as some volumes are included and some are not. (There are tools and websites providing SCI data.)

Other things to look for are the number of editions the conference has had, whether it is a conference, symposium or workshop, whether it has ACM, IEEE, or other such sponsorship. None of these are particularly reliable metrics, though.

Finally, ask your colleagues in the field.

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: For this one, keep in mind that it has a strong bias since it has been done by researchers from the same geographic area. Thus, some research fields are under represented due to this bias.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2011-06-01. Score: 2

Although not strictly a measure of quality, one easy way to judge the *perceived* quality of a conference is to look at its historical acceptance rate. In Computer Science, many conference publications are considered terminal because they are so competitive. The idea is that the "better" the conference, the more desirable it is to submit one's work, thus the more submissions it receives, thus lowering its acceptance rate. It is common for some highly competitive conferences to have acceptance rates well below 20%. If we believe in the efficacy of peer review ([which may be a big "if"](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2992/do-peer-reviewed-journals-enhance-the-quality-of-scientific-research)), then the lower acceptance rate should correlate with "better" papers.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: This is certainly one of the measures the bean-counters use when assessing their academics.  

---

### Answer by username_10 on 2011-05-30. Score: -2

I recommend [Microsoft Academic Search](http://academic.research.microsoft.com). See for example: [a ranking list for TCS conferences](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=3&topDomainID=2&subDomainID=1&last=0&start=1&end=100)

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I've tried it before (checking my own citations), and they were way way off, so I'm not sure how much I would trust their ranking at the moment.  
> **username_10**: This ranking may not be good for physicists, but I, as a computer scientist, think that rankings for computer science are fairly reliable.  
> **username_2**: @username_10: I just quickly checked the top-ranking conferences in my research area, distributed & parallel computing. Number 1 conference seems to be something called "Java Grande"... Let's not try to rely on any automatically-generated conference ranking.  
> **username_1**: @username_10: It's just as bad for my TCS publications as my physics ones.  
> **username_11**: Some of the things listed as conferences are book series. And the prestige ranking, while not completely wrong, isn't very good, either.  
> **username_12**: +1 I think it is useful as a first, quick, unreliable indication. Of course, whatever conclusions you might draw need to be crosschecked with other sources.  

---

