2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1436-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ranking computer science conferences using self-organizing maps with dynamic node splitting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Vrettas & Sanderson, 2015 show that a small number of elite conferences have higher average citations rate than elite journals. While there is a range of metrics for evaluating journals, e.g, Impact Factor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), there is no common metric for evaluating conferences (Almendra, Enăchescu, & Enăchescu, 2015).…”
Section: The Role Of Conferencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vrettas & Sanderson, 2015 show that a small number of elite conferences have higher average citations rate than elite journals. While there is a range of metrics for evaluating journals, e.g, Impact Factor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), there is no common metric for evaluating conferences (Almendra, Enăchescu, & Enăchescu, 2015).…”
Section: The Role Of Conferencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The computer science conferences have been ranked using the self-organizing maps with dynamic nodes splitting method (Da Silva Almendra et al, 2015). It concludes that the conferences are the best measure of dissemination of the recent research trends.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%