We got a small set of good outcomes from some work that we were doing in recent months. However, the outcomes are not so good to be published in good conferences (CS).

So, we decided to post and keep it online via arXiv.

Recently, one of my friends rang me and asked to publish the work in not-so-reputed conference (preferably, IEEE).

I was wondering, is it a good idea to publish it in bad quality conference? Will it give a bad name to us?

Could we get some inputs although we know that the work could still be published after arXiving?

  • 4
    "Versus"? Is there some reason you can't do both?
    – JeffE
    Dec 25, 2016 at 9:52
  • @JeffE as arXiv article is also citable, why to go for conference. So, it is an xor.
    – Coder
    Dec 25, 2016 at 15:04
  • @Coder: Because arXiv articles are not peer reviewed. Then again, depending on the field, proceedings might not be peer reviewed either (e.g. in mathematics it is not rare to find proceedings which are not peer reviewed at all).
    – Ink blot
    Dec 25, 2016 at 16:59

2 Answers 2


It probably depends on the "bad quality conference".

There are some conferences that are not the "top" conferences, have relatively high acceptance rates, and don't necessarily get the most exciting new results - but still do legitimate peer review, have respected experts in the field on their committee, and generally attract good attendees from good programs, albeit not with their very best work. These conferences are very much worth submitting work to and attending. You will get to network with people who are generally doing high quality work, get useful feedback on your own work, and hear some interesting talks.

(Many of the workshops that are co-located with the "top" conferences also fall into this category. These are especially useful, because you can also attend the main conference, and some people from the main conference will attend the workshop. They have many of the benefits of publishing in the "top" conference, but have much higher acceptance rates and are often a good venue for less mature or less exciting results.)

Then there are conferences that don't do high quality peer review, whose organizers and TPC are not particularly well known or respected, that have a very broad scope (so the attendees are barely interesting in one another's talks), and whose proceedings are riddled with plagiarism and work with serious methodological flaws. I would strongly recommend against submitting to these. You will not gain any of the benefits mentioned above. You will waste money traveling to and attending the conference. Publishing in such a conference will preclude you from ever publishing this work in a more reputable venue. It can also signal a lack of judgment with respect to where to publish - while many people will excuse this as just a lack of experience, it is still not the impression you want to leave on people reading your CV.


How 'not so good' are the results? Can they be improved significantly with additional but reasonable time and effort? Have you received rejection notices from other conferences and/or journals already?

I would try my utmost to improve the results, if possible, and target a conference ranked reasonably. I faced a similar conundrum -- my field is related (Computer Security and Cryptography) -- and we opted to spend an additional 4 weeks generating additional results, which paid off. Like ff524 says, poorly-ranked conferences don't only waste time and money, but, in my experience, are usually a red light for others reviewing your profile in the field.

You must log in to answer this question.

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