I have a fair bit of idea by now that journals are ranked by their impact factor, and authors by their citation index, or sometimes h-index. However, similar to this, how are conferences ranked?

  • 7
    Note that ranking journals by, e.g., citation index, may not actually yield useful information. For example, Physical Review Letters intentionally does not chase a high impact factor, yet is still a premier physics journal. When measuring something, always be sure to fully understand how what you are measuring is meaningful, else you are deeply violating Deming's quality principles.
    – Jon Custer
    Jul 12, 2017 at 1:02
  • "authors by their citation index, or sometimes h-index" - note that some of the reasons listed in my answer to another question also apply to authors to some extent. Jul 12, 2017 at 6:32
  • I have problems with CORE's: "updates processed from time to time by a subcommittee established as needed". This process seems random. Conferences/workshops gets listed, and then not followed up on. Jan 27, 2018 at 17:06

1 Answer 1


There are multiple rankings for Conferences:

H5-index: H5-index is the h-index for articles published in the last 5 complete years. It is the largest number h such that h articles published in 2010-2014 have at least h citations each. (Available at: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng).

ERA (2010): This conference ranking has been created as part of the Excellence in Research in Australia (ERA). The ranking was created by Australian deans and the Australian Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE). The rankings range from A (=best) to C (=worst). (Available at: http://www.conferenceranks.com/).

Qualis (2012): This conference ranking has been published by the Brazilian ministry of education and uses the H-index as performance measure for conferences (Computer Science). Based on the H-index percentiles, the conferences are grouped into performance classes that range from A1 (=best), A2, B1... B5 (=worst). (Available at: http://www.conferenceranks.com/).

CORE (2014): The CORE Conference Ranking is an ongoing activity that provides assessments of major conferences in the computing disciplines. The rankings are managed by the CORE Executive Committee, with updates processed from time to time by a subcommittee established as needed. CORA metric for each conference and workshop is calculated by a mix of indicators, including citation rates, paper submission and acceptance rates, and the visibility and research track record of the key people hosting the conference and managing its technical program. Based on the CORA percentiles, the conferences are grouped into performance classes that range from A* (=best), A, B, C, Australasian, and Unranked (=worst). (Available at: http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks/).

Update: CORE 2017 is recently available

  • 1
    Please note the source for details on the Qualis system is specific for computer science. Other fields might use different percentiles.
    – philsf
    Jul 12, 2017 at 7:28
  • Unranked does not mean "worst" it simply means the following: Unranked - A conference for which no ranking decision has been made (from: core website)
    – N. F.
    Nov 10, 2018 at 2:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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