Conferences are the main venues for disseminating research in Computer Science. Publishing a paper in top-tier conferences is a highly competitive process. The Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia, CORE, developed a ranking system of conferences. The metrics consider a variety of factors, such as citation rates, paper submission and acceptance rates, and the esteem of the key people involved in organising the conference. The rank of a particular conference can be seen via the CORE website. Top ranks can be classified in the following way:
- A*: flagship conference (4%), a leading venue in the area.
- A: excellent conference (14%), and highly respected in a discipline area.
- B: good conference (26%), and well regarded in a discipline area.
Journal articles, together with conference publications, are the most important publication types in Computer Science. Journals report novel studies in a greater level of detail than conference papers. In some cases, conference papers are extended with significant new contributions and published in journals. Journal metrics, such as the value of citation counts for highly rated journals, differ in each subfield of Computer Science. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator is a widely accepted ranking system, which classifies journals into quartiles: Q1 is the regarded as the best journals in a discipline area (top 25%), Q2 as mid-to-high journals (25%-50%), and so forth. Workshops provide means of sharing ongoing research with the community and usually do not have formal proceedings. Note that workshop publication still undergoes a peer-review process, although they are not held to the standards of conferences. Technical manuscripts are works that have not been presented or published. These could include preliminary results and papers that are under a reviewing process and in some cases are made available online to expose them to other researchers.
There is no standardised practice regarding authorship ordering in Computer Science: it can be done alphabetically, with respect to the amount of contribution of each author or their status, or in no particular order. In my case, if I am the corresponding author, I list myself as the first author. Otherwise, it depends on the practice of my collaborators. There is typically only one primary contributor, although this is not necessarily the case.