How to evaluate the tier/quality of a conference/journal?

[mach]

Hi,

I am just curious. How do you evaluate the tier/quality of a conference/journal?

[the poisoned pawn]

Some of the ranking. You can google "computer science conference ranking" for more. Usually, people do agree on the tier of the conferences.

http://www.ntu.edu.s...ourav/crank.htm

http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~zaiane/htmldocs/ConfRanking.html

Edited May 24, 2012 by the poisoned pawn

[mach]

well, for instance, ipdps is ranked top tier in one ranking, but second tier in another. How much is it actually worth?

Also, can you any one tell me the tier level for siam journal of scientific computing (sisc)?

[mach]

how does a tier 1 conference differ from a tier 2 one? Is it really necessary the case that a paper from a tier 1 is "better" than one from tier 2?

[Pauli]

You rank the strength of a conference or conference based on what your advisor and her peers says is high quality or not. A good advisor will not let you waste time submitting work to weaker conferences unless that work is preliminary or seed works.

[mach]

Hi. thanks for all the replies. Nevertheless, if I base the quality of a conference/journal on my advisor's opinion, that would be too subjective, right? I mean, I am applying to grad schools. So, naturally, I would like to know how strong CS schools in general would view a conference/journal.

please help

thanks

[jjsakurai]

Every researcher in the field would know the various conference/journal tiers. Unless your advisor has a vested interest in a particular conference/journal, it's perfectly safe to trust your advisor's opinion on this.

Edited May 26, 2012 by jjsakurai

[Pauli]

Nevertheless, if I base the quality of a conference/journal on my advisor's opinion, that would be too subjective, right?

No, there's a very good reason why your advisor got a PhD and was hired to be a professor at that university. Your advisor is also going to be the co-author of whatever papers you publish in grad school, so you really should be trusting your advisor on which conferences to submit to. That's why they're called advisors.

[mach]

sorry if I didn't explain myself clear. I am currently an undergrad, and when I said "advisor", I meant my boss (who indeed got a phd) at a research lab.