2

In the case that I got one paper published, which of the aforementioned repositories have more relevance (so that I can determine that my work has not been published in a nobody-knows-about, fake conference)? I have read that some papers that are in IEEE Xplore belong to bogus or fake conferences and there is also the same problem with Scopus. I have also seen that in some occasions Scopus miss some citations of my articles, while for example in Google Scholar they appear.

Well the bottom line, which repository is better viewed for backing up that one publication was in a reliable conference?

Improve this question
4
  • 4
    The systems that you mention are not conference ranking services.
    – Jukka Suomela
    Commented Jan 26, 2014 at 13:28
  • 3
    What do you mean by having "more relevance"? Your second sentence and last sentence look like you are gathering evidence that your paper was in a respectable conference, while the sentence about citations seems to be on a different topic.
    – Anonymous Mathematician
    Commented Jan 26, 2014 at 13:30
  • 5
    The best repository for determining venue quality is a human: someone who understands the area and the different available options.
    – Suresh
    Commented Jan 26, 2014 at 18:26
  • 2
    ....but your best option for convincing brainless administrators is all three.
    – JeffE
    Commented Jan 26, 2014 at 20:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
10

Anyone who is reasonably experienced in your field (i.e., anyone who might hire you) will know which venues are "relevant". They won't base this on IEEE Xplore, Scopus, or DBLP, but on their own knowledge of the field.

Hopefully, anyone who would hire you will also know enough to evaluate your work directly to some extent, rather than relying on the reputation of the venue as a proxy for the value of the work itself.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .