ICCV 2021 : IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

The ranking presented on this page offers a comprehensive evaluation of scientific conferences within the field of Engineering and Technology. This ranking has been meticulously developed by Research.com, a leading authority in the provision of trusted data on scientific contributions across all major fields, and a well-established platform for science research since 2014.

The position of each conference in this ranking is determined by a unique bibliometric score conceived by Research.com’s team of experts. This score is carefully computed based on two primary indicators: the estimated h-index and the number of leading scientists who have participated in the conference over the three most recent years. By integrating these metrics, the ranking delivers a robust and multidimensional assessment of each conference’s impact and scholarly prestige.

Impact Score values for the presented ranking were collected as of 2024-11-27, ensuring the most up-to-date representation of conference performance and influence. The development of this ranking entailed an exhaustive review process, during which more than 2,262 conferences were rigorously scrutinized. This detailed examination involved the analysis of over 26,934 scientific documents, published in the last three years by a distinguished cohort of 9,385 leading scientists recognized for their substantial contributions to Engineering and Technology.

This ranking thus reflects the depth of scholarly activity and the complexity inherent in evaluating scientific excellence. For readers seeking a more granular understanding of the methodology underpinning the computation of ranking scores, comprehensive information is available on 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 International Conference on Computer Vision (based on the number of publications) are:

• Luc Van Gool (80 papers) published 24 papers at the last edition, 23 more than at the previous edition,
• Andrew Zisserman (59 papers) published 7 papers at the last edition,
• Cordelia Schmid (49 papers) published 9 papers at the last edition,
• Larry S. Davis (46 papers) published 6 papers at the last edition,
• Jitendra Malik (46 papers) published 3 papers at the last edition, 2 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 International Conference on Computer Vision (based on the number of publications) are:

• Microsoft (310 papers) published 60 papers at the last edition, 58 more than at the previous edition,
• Carnegie Mellon University (278 papers) published 47 papers at the last edition, 43 more than at the previous edition,
• Chinese Academy of Sciences (271 papers) published 99 papers at the last edition, 89 more than at the previous edition,
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (222 papers) published 37 papers at the last edition, 33 more than at the previous edition,
• The Chinese University of Hong Kong (205 papers) published 62 papers 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, 5.29% of publications had an unrecognized affiliation. Out of the publications with recognized affiliations, 30.39% were posted by at least one author from the top 10 institutions publishing at the conference. Another 11.75% included authors affiliated with research institutions from the top 11-20 affiliations. Institutions from the 21-50 range included 20.78% of all publications and 37.08% 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.