Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF)

This ranking presents a comprehensive evaluation of scientific conferences in the field of Computer Science. Developed by Research.com, which has been a trusted source of scientific data and analysis since 2014, this ranking is based on a distinct bibliometric score tailored exclusively for assessing conference impact and prominence. Research.com is recognized as one of the leading platforms for providing reliable insights across all major scientific disciplines, including Computer Science.

The position of each conference is determined by an innovative bibliometric score that integrates both the estimated h-index and the number of top-ranking scientists who have contributed to the conference within the last three years. This dual-factor scoring system is designed to reflect both the lasting influence and the caliber of participants associated with each conference. The Impact Score values used in this ranking were collected on 2024-11-27, ensuring that the assessment is grounded in the latest and most accurate data available.

The ranking process was notably rigorous, encompassing in-depth evaluation of more than 2,742 conferences. These were carefully selected after detailed inspection and analysis of over 148,739 scientific documents published during the previous three years. The assessment further involved the expertise of 13,184 leading and well-respected scientists within the Computer Science domain, highlighting the substantial scope and credibility of the evaluation.

For readers seeking a more comprehensive understanding of the scoring methodology, detailed information is readily available on our Methodology Page. This page provides an in-depth explanation of the analytical processes and bibliometric criteria employed to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the ranking.

Papers citation over time

A key indicator for each conference is its effectiveness in reaching other researchers with the papers published at that venue.

The chart below presents the interquartile range (first quartile 25%, median 50% and third quartile 75%) of the number of citations of articles over time.

Top authors and change over time

The top authors publishing at Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (based on the number of publications) are:

• Alexis Joly (25 papers) published 3 papers at the last edition, 3 less than at the previous edition,
• Henning Müller (18 papers) published 2 papers at the last edition the same number as at the previous edition,
• Pierre Bonnet (18 papers) published 3 papers at the last edition, 2 less than at the previous edition,
• Hervé Goëau (16 papers) published 2 papers at the last edition, 2 less than at the previous edition,
• Preslav Nakov (13 papers) published 5 papers at the last edition, 4 more than at the previous edition.

The overall trend for top authors publishing at this conference is outlined below. The chart shows the number of publications at each edition of the conference for top authors.

Top affiliations and change over time

Only papers with recognized affiliations are considered

The top affiliations publishing at Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (based on the number of publications) are:

• Dublin City University (20 papers) published 1 paper at the last edition the same number as at the previous edition,
• University of Amsterdam (17 papers) published 2 papers at the last edition, 1 more than at the previous edition,
• Qatar Computing Research Institute (14 papers) published 5 papers at the last edition, 4 more than at the previous edition,
• University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (14 papers) published 2 papers at the last edition, 1 more than at the previous edition,
• University of Padua (14 papers) published 3 papers at the last edition the same number as at the previous edition.

The overall trend for top affiliations publishing at this conference is outlined below. The chart shows the number of publications at each edition of the conference for top affiliations.

Publication chance based on affiliation

The publication chance index shows the ratio of articles published by the best research institutions at the conference edition to all articles published within that conference. The best research institutions were selected based on the largest number of articles published during all editions of the conference.

The chart below presents the percentage ratio of articles from top institutions (based on their ranking of total papers).Top affiliations were grouped by their rank into the following tiers: top 1-10, top 11-20, top 21-50, and top 51+. Only articles with a recognized affiliation are considered.

During the most recent 2021 edition, 11.76% of publications had an unrecognized affiliation. Out of the publications with recognized affiliations, 35.56% were posted by at least one author from the top 10 institutions publishing at the conference. Another 13.33% included authors affiliated with research institutions from the top 11-20 affiliations. Institutions from the 21-50 range included 8.89% of all publications and 42.22% were from other institutions.

Returning Authors Index

A very common phenomenon observed among researchers publishing scientific articles is the intentional selection of conferences they have already attended in the past. In particular, it is worth analyzing the case when the authors participate in the same conference from year to year.

The Returning Authors Index presented below illustrates the ratio of authors who participated in both a given as well as the previous edition of the conference in relation to all participants in a given year.

Returning Institution Index

The graph below shows the Returning Institution Index, illustrating the ratio of institutions that participated in both a given and the previous edition of the conference in relation to all affiliations present in a given year.

The experience to innovation index

Our experience to innovation index was created to show a cross-section of the experience level of authors publishing at a conference. The index includes the authors publishing at the last edition of a conference, grouped by total number of publications throughout their academic career (P) and the total number of citations of these publications ever received (C).

The group intervals were selected empirically to best show the diversity of the authors' experiences, their labels were selected as a convenience, not as judgment. The authors were divided into the following groups:

• Novice - P < 5 or C < 25 (the number of publications less than 5 or the number of citations less than 25),
• Competent - P < 10 or C < 100 (the number of publications less than 10 or the number of citations less than 100),
• Experienced - P < 25 or C < 625 (the number of publications less than 25 or the number of citations less than 625),
• Master - P < 50 or C < 2500 (the number of publications less than 50 or the number of citations less than 2500),
• Star - P ≥ 50 and C ≥ 2500 (both the number of publications greater than 50 and the number of citations greater than 2500).

The chart below illustrates experience levels of first authors in cases of publications with multiple authors.