The weightings are arbitrary and will depend on general agreement among members of the committee.

Apart from the discipline of Computer Science and some sub-disciplines in Engineering, published journal papers are typically held in higher regard than are fully edited and refereed conference proceedings papers.

Normally in International Conferences the plagiarisms are allowed for certain percentage. We are not submitting any supporting documents which used for our research purpose in conferences. But in Journal papers the plagiarisms are not allowed. Paragraphism may be allowed that to that particular refereed author details should be cited in the articles. So The Journal articles are worth when compare to Conference articles.

Good point Santhosh, however it also depends on the rating of the conference which means the higher the more strict it will be in the policies for authors' preparation of manuscripts.

I confess that the dilemma presented here is completely strange to me, but perhaps that is a common practice in certain states/countries. I would be very interested in this: How can it be with reasonable standards of judgment that the scientific value of a text is not dependent on its content, but only on whether it is a conference paper or a published contribution? How can scientifically answer that one formality is twice as valuable (evaluates the evaluation of a scientific content) as the other formality? And all this without considering the content of the text. Does that mean that the reviewer does not even read the essays of the candidate, but he is only interested in the question of whether it is a conference paper or a published contribution? This formal question is completely secondary to the text content. No, do not understand it, and do not consider this described practice a dilemma, but inadmissible and unscientific. Unless I completely misunderstood this question.

This equivalence is not fair at all. Papers in journals and conferences have big differences.

I agree Mr Mahesh Kumar

Paper in journal = Papers in conference + extension and development

Dear Hein, believed or not such a situation exists and for sure as you said it is very strange if not considering the content and the context as well as the extensiveness of the works. For some the trigger words are simply journal paper versus conference paper!! So, this is here to assess the readers' reactions and hopefully for people who faced such an issue what they did?

I consider it unfair to promote, evaluate with the same (scientific) methodology documents or publications of Science and Technology, comparing them with the same method, strategies and methods, to the documents or publications of Social Sciences and Humanities; since the latter (Social and Humanities) are generally of a critical and interpretative nature of a social reality; while the first (scientific), have only the goal of generating knowledge and technological innovations, without objection or justify why socially perform such research.

With regard to this disquisition, I offer a link where the differences of method in the approach of the Factical Sciences vs the Social Sciences and Humanities are discussed

https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_the_generation_of_knowledge_the_method_of_natural_sciences_is_applicable_to_the_social_sciences

Greetings

I totally agree that the content of an article is more important than simply referring to journal paper versus conference paper. However, it is most likely that a publication in a high impact reefered journal has reached certain scientific level. I think both are very important to avoid subjectivity in the evaluation.

Thank You and Best Wishes

In my point of view, First I will give preference to the journal publication then conference presentation. Afterward, I will go through the content delivery then the impact of that publication or presentation. I am not interested to give more importance to conference presentations, why because they lost its quality and transparency in the selection of papers.

Regards

Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana

@Hussin Jose Hejase

Dear Hussin, I am really thankful for your answer and your confirmation that the supposed practice happens as normal procedure of academic life. I just take note of that. If you ask such a question as an outsider, practice of scientific evaluation of young scientists' achievemnts may not always be understandable. In the short term, of course, it saves time to refrain from reading texts, but in the long term I cannot imagine that such a procedure would be good for a country's scientific standard. As long as something works well, responsible people will probably see no reason to change it. Thank you for your clarification. - Greetings, Hein

Dear colleagues, the matter of the question is not only related to methodology but the integrated research process cycle including all the stages and the deliverables. In my inquiry I mentioned that the reputation of the Journal and the conference are constant, that is of similar magnitude. I recall the concept of Cold Fusion in the early nineties. The convention where the initial experimentation were announced had more than 2000 scientists from all labs around the world, and there were so many diverse opinions and not much later a scientific review appeared in Nature! If I compare both articles, where do I stand?

On the other hand, In the last two decades, I got acquainted with Prof. Sharma's work on the new concepts of management and Leadership along the dimension of ancestral wisdom and spirituality, that even Harvard people adopted from it. Comparing the Conference paper versus the journal paper in this topic, where do you stand??

I know that some may say it is not fair to be subjective, but decisions even if built with the support of data and facts, remain subjective because of the decision maker, the Human.

A word well presented in a scientific convention [either in Natural or Social sciences] is of high value, similar to the Impact factor of journals... Even among researchers and scholars impact factors and other measurements are under debate!! So, the closed circles of journals [many A journals] will not allow the opportunties for young scientists unless well known mentors support, what about the bright young scientists with limited resources... the conferences is a leeway for them.

In Business and management field, I think we have more emphasis on journal papers than conference papers. Quality and ranking are of course most important factor in deciding which one is better than other. For ex. a proceeding in AoM or AIB is better than a journal paper that is ranked 'B' in Australian ADBC. Ofcourse, there are some good 'B's which have high impact factor. In fact, we can't decide on only one or two factors while ranking journal and/or conferences. Several indicators need to consider simultaneously in order to take the decision.

In Crioatia journal papers are of significantly higher value, especially in STEM area. In social siences the difference is less but still, you can't go a further career step if you oin't have journal articles.

Thank you Mirna, Muhammad and Hein for the inputs. I am very aware how people look at different nations' journals and conferences, believe me when it comes to bare essentials, you will find biases underneath!!

I guess dealing with each file, on a case by case approach and considering several dimensions [creating a rubric], may add fairness to the process. Therefore, it will be very appropriate to write up a policy and very clear and transparent steps on how to look at a case and defining the dimensions.

Dear Prof. Hussin,

Conference papers are scored 5 while journal papers are scored 10 in promotions in many higher institutions in Ghana. I have seen many peer reviewed conference papers that are better than many peer reviewed journal papers. I think it is very unfair.

For a fair assessment of the papers, the set criteria laid out must be used and not the kind of paper. If a conference paper is well prepared and conducted, satisfactorily meeting all the set criteria, I think it must be at par with journal papers'status in terms of score. Kind regards

Well put Dickson. A thorough review of the paper per se rather its classification may lead to fair results.

I feel that a well designed process for evaluation each type is a must for the sake of fairness.

Actually Dr. Lezzaik, I am in the process to develop a scheme for a teaching institution taking into consideration both Refereed Journal Papers as well as Refereed Conference Papers.

Hopefully you cover the dimensions of the research process cycle as well.

The weightings are arbitrary and will depend on general agreement among members of the committee.

Apart from the discipline of Computer Science and some sub-disciplines in Engineering, published journal papers are typically held in higher regard than are fully edited and refereed conference proceedings papers.

I agree with you Michael, what you said is applied in most Universities.

To Hussin Jose Hejase:

If such conditions are not applied, they should be.

Agree with Michael. Excellent input.

It seems the weighting is relative to the University concerned policies.

As for the idividuals who are not academicians, I find and observed they worry more about excellent conferences work. May be it is a matter of Branding.

Coming from a Humanities background, I think highly refereed conferences papers are valuable as a refereed journal paper.

Dear Dr. Lezzaik, this issue was discussed in a similar thread. Individuals who are more professionals in Business prefer High Caliber Conferences.