Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality Conference (TEEM)

The scientific conference ranking presented on this page is dedicated to the field of Social Sciences and Humanities, aiming to provide a comprehensive and credible evaluation of conference impact within this academic sphere. Developed by Research.com, a recognized authority in the dissemination and analysis of scientific data across major disciplines since 2014, this ranking leverages the platform’s expertise and trusted methodologies.

Each conference’s position in the ranking is determined by a proprietary bibliometric score formulated by Research.com. This score is meticulously calculated using two key indicators: the estimated h-index and the number of leading scientists who have contributed to the conference over the last three years. This multi-faceted approach ensures that the ranking is reflective of both the scholarly impact and the continued engagement by top experts in the Social Sciences and Humanities.

Impact Score values for this ranking were gathered as of 2024-11-27, ensuring the most up-to-date assessment. The rigorous ranking process entailed a careful examination of more than 450 conferences, which were shortlisted following a comprehensive review of over 1,700 scientific documents produced in the preceding three years by 6,602 leading and widely respected researchers in the field. This level of analytical depth highlights the dedication to accuracy and the high standards required for inclusion in the final ranking.

For readers interested in understanding the detailed procedures and statistical foundations behind this ranking, complete information on score computation and methodology 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 Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (based on the number of publications) are:

• Francisco José García-Peñalvo (161 papers) published 15 papers at the last edition, 7 less than at the previous edition,
• Juan Antonio Juanes Méndez (41 papers) published 8 papers at the last edition, 2 more than at the previous edition,
• Miguel Á. Conde (39 papers) published 5 papers at the last edition, 3 less than at the previous edition,
• Juan A. Juanes (38 papers) published 1 paper at the last edition, 8 less than at the previous edition,
• Alicia García-Holgado (34 papers) published 7 papers at the last edition, 3 less 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 Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (based on the number of publications) are:

• University of Salamanca (516 papers) published 73 papers at the last edition, 9 less than at the previous edition,
• Technical University of Madrid (71 papers) published 11 papers at the last edition, 4 less than at the previous edition,
• University of León (66 papers) published 10 papers at the last edition, 8 less than at the previous edition,
• Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (54 papers) published 21 papers at the last edition, 6 more than at the previous edition,
• University of Cádiz (33 papers) published 2 papers at the last edition, 1 more than 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 2020 edition, 3.95% of publications had an unrecognized affiliation. Out of the publications with recognized affiliations, 63.53% were posted by at least one author from the top 10 institutions publishing at the conference. Another 7.06% included authors affiliated with research institutions from the top 11-20 affiliations. Institutions from the 21-50 range included 18.24% of all publications and 11.18% 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.