Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 1795–1814 | Cite as

Publication practices in the Argentinian Computer Science community: a bibliometric perspective

  • Daniela Godoy
  • Alejandro Zunino
  • Cristian Mateos
Article

Abstract

The Computer Science (CS) community has been discussing, for some time now, the role of conferences as publication venues. In this regard, computer scientists claim to have a long-standing tradition in publishing their research results in conferences, which are also recognized as being different to events in other disciplines. This practice, however, contrasts with journal driven publication practices which are the prevailing academic standard. Consequently, the assessment of the quality of CS conferences with respect to journals is a recurrent topic of discussion within evaluation boards in charge of judging researchers’ performance. Even when agreements are feasible inside the discipline, they are often subject to the scrutiny in the context of multi-disciplinary evaluation boards—usually ruled by standard bibliometrics—in which CS researchers compete for obtaining scholarships, positions and funding. The Argentinian CS community is not an exception in this respect. In this paper, we present a study of the publication practices of the Argentinian CS community, their evolution over time and, more importantly, the impact they achieved in terms of citations. The findings of this study are good basis for understanding the publishing practices of our community, promoting future discussions as well as supporting the community positions regarding these issues.

Keywords

Computer science Publication practices Conferences and journals 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the financial support by ANPCyT (grant PICT-2012-0045) and CONICET (grant PIP 2013-2015, code 11220120100185CO).

References

  1. Anderson, T. (2009). Conference reviewing considered harmful. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 43(2), 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birman, K., & Schneider, F. B. (2009). Viewpoint: Program committee overload in systems. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eckmann, M., Rocha, A., & Wainer, J. (2012). Relationship between high-quality journals and conferences in computer vision. Scientometrics, 90(2), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fortnow, L. (2009). Viewpoint: Time for computer science to grow up. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Franceschet, M. (2010). The role of conference publications in CS. Communications of the ACM, 53(12), 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franceschet, M. (2011). The skewness of computer science. Information Processing & Management, 47(1), 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Halpern, J. Y., & Parkes, D. C. (2011). Journals for certification, conferences for rapid dissemination. Communications of the ACM, 54(8), 36–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hermenegildo, M. (2012). Conferences versus journals in CS, what to do? Evolutionary ways forward and the ICLP/TPLP model. In: Dagstuhl seminar 12452—perspectives workshop: Publication culture in computing research.Google Scholar
  10. Jagadish, H. V. (2008). The conference reviewing crisis and a proposed solution. ACM SIGMOD Record, 37(3), 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. van Leeuwen, J. (2012) .Where to send your paper? In: Dagstuhl seminar 12452—perspectives workshop: Publication culture in computing research.Google Scholar
  12. Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science measuring what’s measurable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer, B., Choppy, C., Staunstrup, J., & van Leeuwen, J. (2009). Viewpoint: Research evaluation for computer science. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation, information science and knowledge management (Vol. 9). Dordrech: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 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, 59(5), 816–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sheskin, D. J. (2011). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton: CRC Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Smirnov, N. V. (1939). Estimate of deviation between empirical distribution functions in two independent samples. Bulletin Moscow University, 2, 3–16.Google Scholar
  18. Vanclay, J. K. (2011). An evaluation of the Australian Research Council’s journal ranking. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vardi, M. Y. (2009). Conferences versus journals in computing research. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 5–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vasilescu, B., Serebrenik, A., Mens, T., van den Brand, M. G., & Pek, E. (2014). How healthy are software engineering conferences? Science of Computer Programming, 89(Part C), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wainer, J., Eckmann, M., Goldenstein, S., & Rocha, A. (2013). How productivity and impact differ across computer science subareas. Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Godoy
    • 1
  • Alejandro Zunino
    • 1
  • Cristian Mateos
    • 1
  1. 1.ISISTAN Research Institute - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (UNICEN)Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations