How to Decode the CORE Conference Ranking System
When you browse a call for papers, you’ll often see a label like “CORE A*” or “CORE B” attached to the venue. Those letters are not just decorative—they’re part of a systematic attempt to gauge a conference’s scholarly impact. Understanding what the CORE conference ranking actually measures, how it’s compiled, and where its limits lie can save you from over‑ or under‑estimating a venue’s prestige.
What the CORE Ranking Actually Measures
The CORE ranking, maintained by the Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia, focuses on conferences in computer science and related disciplines. It aims to reflect peer‑perceived quality, relevance, and selectivity rather than raw citation counts alone. In practice, the list serves as a quick reference for students, hiring committees, and funding bodies seeking a common language to compare venues.
Tier Definitions: A*, A, B, C
- A* – The cream of the crop. These conferences attract the most competitive submissions, have low acceptance rates (often below 20 %), and are widely recognized as flagship events in their sub‑fields.
- A – Highly respected venues that maintain rigorous review processes. Acceptance rates typically sit between 20 % and 35 % and the proceedings are regularly cited.
- B – Solid, mid‑tier conferences that provide a reputable outlet for emerging work. They may have slightly higher acceptance rates but still enforce a thorough peer review.
- C – Regional or niche meetings that are valuable for community building but generally lack the broad impact of higher tiers.
How the Rankings Are Determined
The CORE committee relies on a blend of expert opinion and quantitative signals. A panel of senior academics reviews each conference’s history, acceptance statistics, and citation patterns. They also consider the venue’s longevity and its role in shaping research agendas. While the process is transparent—ranking updates are published annually—exact weighting of each factor is not disclosed, which leaves a small element of subjectivity.
Why Researchers Care About the Rankings
For many, the ranking is a shortcut to assess where to submit a manuscript. A strong paper in an A* conference can boost a CV dramatically, influencing tenure decisions or grant evaluations. Likewise, universities sometimes set internal policies that reward publications in higher‑ranked venues, making the ranking a de‑facto benchmark for career progression.
Common Misunderstandings and Pitfalls
- Higher tier ≠ universal relevance. A top‑ranked conference in artificial intelligence may not be the best fit for a niche security study.
- Rankings lag behind emerging fields. Fast‑moving areas like quantum machine learning can outpace the committee’s updates, leaving new but high‑impact venues unranked.
- Geographic bias can creep in. Because the CORE panel is largely based in Australasia and Europe, some reputable conferences in Asia or South America receive lower grades than their citation metrics would suggest.
- Acceptance rate isn’t everything. A low acceptance rate might reflect strict page limits rather than superior quality.
Using the Rankings Responsibly
Treat the CORE rating as one data point among many. Cross‑check a conference’s reputation by looking at recent keynote speakers, the diversity of the program committee, and how often its papers appear in major citation databases. When you’re evaluating a colleague’s work, ask whether the venue aligns with the research’s scope, not just its letter grade.
Frequently Asked Questions
What distinguishes an A* conference from an A conference?
Generally, A* venues have stricter acceptance rates, longer histories of high‑impact publications, and broader international participation. Both tiers are respected, but an A* label signals a higher level of selectivity.
Can a conference change its CORE rank from year to year?
Yes. Rankings are updated annually based on the latest data and expert assessments. A conference that improves its review rigor or citation impact may climb, while one that stagnates could slip.
Should I avoid publishing in a C‑ranked conference?
Not necessarily. C‑ranked meetings can be ideal for early‑career researchers seeking feedback, for work that is highly specialized, or for building collaborations within a regional community. The key is to match your goals with the venue’s strengths.
