Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

This ranking presents a comprehensive assessment of scientific conferences within the field of Computer Science, meticulously compiled by Research.com—one of the leading authorities in the dissemination of research data and analysis across all major scientific fields, with a proven track record of providing trusted scientific contribution metrics since 2014.

The position of each conference in this ranking is determined by a unique bibliometric score developed by Research.com, which incorporates both the estimated h-index and the number of renowned scientists who have participated in each conference over the past three years. This dual-parameter methodology ensures a balanced and robust evaluation of conference influence and scientific leadership.

Impact Score values featured in this ranking have been diligently collected as of 2024-11-27. The selection and evaluation process involved the careful review of more than 2,742 conferences, following rigorous examination of over 148,739 scientific publications produced by 13,184 leading and respected researchers in Computer Science within the last three years. Such a comprehensive approach ensures that the ranking reflects both the breadth and depth of scholarly impact in the discipline.

Our methodological rigor and the expertise of our analytical team underpin the credibility of this ranking, providing valuable, data-driven insights to the scientific community. For a detailed explanation of the approach used to calculate ranking scores, please refer to our Methodology Page.

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 Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (based on the number of publications) are:

• Noah A. Smith (61 papers) published 1 paper at the last edition, 11 less than at the previous edition,
• Dan Roth (52 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Christopher D. Manning (50 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Mirella Lapata (49 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Eduard Hovy (44 papers) absent at the last 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 Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (based on the number of publications) are:

• Microsoft (360 papers) published 20 papers at the last edition, 72 less than at the previous edition,
• Carnegie Mellon University (341 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Google (267 papers) published 4 papers at the last edition, 86 less than at the previous edition,
• University of Washington (204 papers) published 2 papers at the last edition, 49 less than at the previous edition,
• IBM (201 papers) absent at the last 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, 6.06% of publications had an unrecognized affiliation. Out of the publications with recognized affiliations, 83.87% were posted by at least one author from the top 10 institutions publishing at the conference. Another 6.45% included authors affiliated with research institutions from the top 11-20 affiliations. Institutions from the 21-50 range included 0.00% of all publications and 9.68% 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.