, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 617–630 | Cite as

Relationship between high-quality journals and conferences in computer vision

  • Michael EckmannEmail author
  • Anderson Rocha
  • Jacques Wainer


In computer science, as opposed to many other disciplines, papers published in conference and workshop proceedings count as formal publications when evaluating the scholarship of an academic. We consider the relationship between high quality journals and conferences in the computer vision (CV) subfield of computer science. We determined that 30% of papers in the top-3 CV journals base their work on top-3 conference papers by the same authors (which we call priors (See “Methods” section for the definition of a prior)). Journal papers with priors are significantly more cited than journal papers without priors. Also the priors themselves are cited more than other papers from the conferences. For a period of 3–5 years after the journal paper publication, the priors receive more citations than the follow-up journal paper. After that period, the journal paper starts receiving most of the citations. Furthermore, we found that having the prior conference paper did not make it any easier (faster) to publish in a journal. We also surveyed journal authors and based on their answers and the priors analysis, we discovered that authors seem to be divided into different groups depending on their preferred method of publication.


Computer science Computer vision Publishing Journal papers Conference proceedings Author survey Bibliometrics 


  1. Franceschet, M. (2010). The role of conference publications in computer science: A bibliometric view. Communications of the ACM, 53(12), 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Franceschet, M. (2011). The skewness of computer science. Information Processing and Management, 47, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2011). The first italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective. Journal of Infometrics, 5(2), 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Freyne, J., Coyle, L., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2010). Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 53(11), 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goodrum, A., McCain, K. W., Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing and Management, 37, 661–675.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 50(10), 890–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Martins, W., Gonalves, M., Laender, A., & Ziviani, N. (2010). Assessing the quality of scientific conferences based on bibliographic citations. Scientometrics, 83, 133–155. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0078-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Montesi, M., Owen, J. M. (2008). From conference to journal publication: How conference papers in software engineering are extended for publication in journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 59(5), 816–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shamir, L. (2010). The effect of conference proceedings on the scholarly communication in computer science and engineering. Scholarly and Research Communication, 1(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  10. Stringer, M. J., Sales-Pardo, M., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2008). Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information. PLoS ONE, 3(2), e1683,02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wainer, J., de Oliveira, H. P., & Anido, R. (2011). Patterns of bibliographic references in the acm published papers. Information Processing & Management, 47(1), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Eckmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anderson Rocha
    • 2
  • Jacques Wainer
    • 2
  1. 1.Skidmore CollegeSaratoga SpringsUSA
  2. 2.University of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations