A conference paper presentation gives you a platform to interact with people of the same field but journal publication is generally considered superior especially with a good impact factor. What do you think?
The conference paper gives faster feedback. The journal paper counts for about twice as much credit, but takes longer to get into press (an average of 9 months).
PLUS: The conference paper lets you choose genuine foreign food off an incomprehensible menu. :-)
The conference paper gives faster feedback. The journal paper counts for about twice as much credit, but takes longer to get into press (an average of 9 months).
PLUS: The conference paper lets you choose genuine foreign food off an incomprehensible menu. :-)
Due to time constraints conference paper are short and usually followed by discussion, feedback is general in nature due to short presentation are not helpful in improvement. On the other hand full length paper after peer review and removing shortcomings is naturally superior to a conference paper.
Selecting a journal for publication is very difficult job and sometimes authors do not know the importance of their research and they opt to go for a sub-standard journal for rapid publication. On the other hand conferences are directional.
I think a journal is superior to conference papers, because of the depth analysis a journal has. The journal where I actually work is called RECARI and concerns Private Equity and Venture Capital. Experts usually write their own investigations and articles, but also current market movements appear reflected in its correspondent section.
We distribute it in both formats: full length paper and electronically, in order take all formats and to try to reach as many custormers as possible.
Since two years ago we are trying to build it up with at least one article in English language per number, but mainly it is written in Spanish language. It is compulsary for authors to include an abstract in English language per each article and keywords definition.
We have the web in three different languages, (Spanish, English and Portuguese language) and we try to focus as many corporate-law-economic-financial issues as possible, with a scholarly perspective, improving the contents we have in those languages as time let us the chance to make it possible.
Let me show you an example inviting you to take a look at our web http://www.recari.es/index.php
In my point of view, I think that we can gain useful and novel ideas from both proceedings and Journal papers. However, each of them has a couple advantages and drawbacks.
+ Advantages of Conference Paper (Proceedings): (1) takes short time for feedback (Nearly one or two months depends on the conference). (2) Presenting the work done so far. (3) Interacting with international audience working in the same field. (4) Negotiation and feedbacks.
+ Advantages of Journal Papers: (1) frequently peer-reviewed (i.e. the paper will carefully evaluated for errors and possibly rewritten a couple of times). (2) Higher Impact Factor compared to Proceedings. (3) High quality papers with deep analysis. (4) Useful Feedback from reviewers, etc…
+ Drawbacks of Journal Papers: (1) takes longer time for feedback (nearly a year in some high impact factor journals). (2) Research topic may become outdated as a result of publication delayed.
+ Drawbacks of Conference Paper (Proceedings): (1) some conferences take whatever you send them if you participated in the event. (2) Less feedback from reviewers, etc…
journal > conference since it very hard to explain in wording to the reviewer. In conference, you can explain more in details by verbally hence the audience will understood what is your research work.
From my subjective dispositions, some conference proceedings can parallel some 'high quality' journals concerning feedback-quality. For example, some 'IEEE Xplore' oriented conferences are excellent regarding the overall quality of reviewers' in-depth feedback. Besides, unlike in most conference proceedings publications, as Saeed mentioned, "research topic may become outdated as a result of publication delayed" somewhat inherent in most 'top' journals! Indeed, it is impressive to publish in a high impact journal. But "thoughtful and insightful comments" in themselves do not always come out of "top journals", irrespective of what the editors' decisions (acceptance, rejection or revision) at the end of the review process.
It completely depends on rank/grade of conference or journal. Higher the rank the more worth publishing.!!!
of course research paper, but if conference paper being presented at high platform then its better.
Which is better depends on the research field, conference and proceedings. Some scientific journals publish the peer reviewed conference proceedings: e.g., Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research ( https://www.journals.elsevier.com/mutation-research-reviews ) and Radiation Protection Dosimetry (https://academic.oup.com/rpd ) in my field. The name of some scientific journals includes “proceedings” (or “bulletin”): e.g., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ( http://www.pnas.org/ ) and Proceedings of the Japan Academy (series A on Mathematical Sciences, Series B on Physical and Biological Sciences, http://www.japan-acad.go.jp/en/publishing/ ).
for sure journal publication is better as many can read and cite later, but conferences paper few who will read and rarely it will cited
Frankly speaking, both are equally important. When you present your paper at a conference in the topic of your choice, you get an insight into the shortcomings of your research through suggestions and constructive feedbacks. You also get to connect with people of your interest and enhance your research. In the case of a journal, you get a visibility, but the editors for a major chunk of your time do not have the time to elaborate out suggestions and would prefer to withhold your research from getting published, if it fails to match their parameters. If you are committed to getting your article published in a reputed journal, I strongly advice to firstly participate in a conference, rework on your research and then approach a journal for publication, which would increase the likelihood of your article getting published
Of course a paper in a good journal (SCI/Scopus) is better than in a conference. However, it all depends on the contents of research. If good research paper is being presented in a conference then it is not going to degrade its quality.
Both are 2 consecutive steps towards better research.
A journal publication or even a book will have more long lasting impact, considering the time factor. However, the history of science shows that important conferences were re-edited as books 'forever' (e.g. yearbook, Festschrift, …).
Which is better, a conference paper or journal publication?
Journal publication is better.
Conference papers are a faster way to advertise ones' research. However, a problem with conference papers is that at many places, papers published as conference proceedings are not accepted for promotion, yet in some places where it is accepted for promotion it is given less credit than a article published in a journal.
I think publication in international conference is better than Journal in visibility and spread.
I believe both are equally good. Journals have better impact factor and the reviewers comments are very good. As someone actually gives you a genuine opinion about ur work.
Where as conference paper is easy n less time consuming to publish and just focus primarily on plagiarism.
So to begin with its easier to get a paper published in a conference and it is a great platform to interact with eminent personalities n learn from them.
Later you can write a good research paper for some good n preferably free journal.
All the best. Enjoy exlporing n contributing something worthy to the society.
In my opinion , Journal publication is far better than conference paper.
Actually I did a rubric to add fairness to such a question. There are a range of papers. There are very good journal papers in refereed journals, there are excellent refereed international paper conferences, same to the regional papers and the national papers. Then we devised a rubric to create equivalence points to judge the papers including time of publication, refereed journals publihsed [int'l, regional and local], papers published in referred conferences [int'l, regional, local], methodology, contribution to social problems solutions, originality, basic versus applied, etc...
Some conference papers are worth more than journal refereed papers and vise versa or different in a graded approach!! This helped us to assess instructors who have more conference papers than journal papers.
I think It depends on the paper itself and the subject investigated and discussed
I think it depends on the conference and the Journal, but generally publishing in conference is faster than the publishing in a Journal.
Conference papers refer to articles that are written with the goal of being accepted to a conference: typically an annual (or biannual) venue with a specific scope where you can present your results to the community, usually as an oral presentation, a poster presentation, or a tabled discussion. The review process for conference papers is typically within a fixed window: everyone submits for a certain deadline, then the review committee (program committee) collaborates to review and discuss papers, then all authors are notified with accept/reject at the same time. Since the review process has a fixed schedule (to meet the schedule of the physical meeting), conference review times are quite predictable.
Conference papers are typically published in collections called "proceedings": sometimes these are printed by university presses, by professional organizations, by big-name publishers, or simply online.
Journal papers refer to an article that's published in an issue of the journal. The frequency of issues for different journals varies from one-a-month to once-a-year, or anything in between; it may not even be regular. The review process for journals often does not have a fixed deadline or schedule: though journals may promise things like "reviews in six weeks", in my experience, this rarely if ever holds true. However, instead of conferences that typically have only accept/reject decisions, journals typically have a rolling review schedule and reviewers can opt to ask the authors for revisions, meaning that there might be multiple review phases (often limited to three, at which stage the paper is rejected/accepted).
Since conference papers have a fixed schedule and provide the authors a venue for discussion and feedback, they are generally for earlier-term work or for "announcing/marking an idea", or for finding collaborators. Furthermore, conference papers tend to have fixed page-limits, which restricts the content to preliminary findings.
Journal papers tend to have generous page-limits (or none at all), but typically require the work to be more comprehensive and self-contained in return.
In general, in most fields, papers in well-recognized journals tend to have more prestige than papers in well-recognized conferences (esp. in terms of metrics). But this is a simplification.
While in some fields, conference papers are akin to talk abstracts, in areas like computer science, conference papers can be very meaty and there is a high churn of papers in conferences. Top conferences can have acceptance rates around 10%, and as such, A+ conference papers are often held in high regard within the community: these venues are far more competitive than many of the best journals. Still, even in the CS area, metric-wise (for hiring, positions, funding, etc.), journals will often still count for more than a conference following the norm in other academic fields.
Best Regards Syed Muhammad Arsalan Bashir
I think conference paper or Paper published in Journal both are good options for a researcher depending on impact factor or reputation of conference/journal worldwide.
Research journal article has more worth than conference paper. If the conference paper get publication with provide accurate ISSN, then it would have worth, otherwise it would not have consideration. Moreover, in which conference you're going to present it also does matter.
In fact, the paper published in journal is more better than conference.
It is good to begin by contributing in a conference as it boosts the confidence of writing n seeing your work getting published quickly. Ideally after writing 2 or 3 papers in conference start writing some good research paper and getting it published in some average journal and once that is done. Target for the best journals like springer, acm, ieee, inderscience etc. write n forget as they take almost 1-1.5 yrs for publication. All the best n start writing n contributing..😊
INACCURATE COMPARISONS , BECAUSE IT'S DEPEND ON THE QUALITY AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONFERENCE OR JOURNALS AND , ITS CAN BE TOGETHER
I also think that the paper published in journal is better than conference one
Conference papers also detail how to use specific research tools and approaches for non-experts. If a researcher is new to a field, or working in an interdisciplinary area, conference papers are an ideal access point.
Conference paper has a essential importance for communication between the researchers. This type of presentation figures like excellent tool for discussion and improvement the scientific content of the research like complement of the research work.
For me, scientific paper is the final step. Here you may consider the results of the discussion in the conference. Finally, the experience concludes that is not necessary to put in front both figures of scientific work presentation.
It depends a lot on the field and area. Generally speaking, although in many research areas, a journal is more prestigious, computer science is a clear exception. Many conferences in the CS are double-blind reviewed by at least two reviewers. In fact, we have some conferences with acceptance rate well below 15%. I am not sure why the CS have become such an exception in the scientific community but this is what the reality is. In machine learning for example, a paper at KDD, WWW, ICML, ICDM, RecSys and some other conferences is way more prestigious and valuable than many Journal papers.
I guess, in general, when people hear the term conference paper they immediately think of a short 1-2 pages paper with no experiments and results because this is the case for many conference papers in other fields. But not in computer science. For example, a full KDD paper is 10 pages in a ACM double-column format which is easily around 25-30 pages when you turn it into a standard single column format.
It depends but for faster feedback on article conference paper is useful.
Conference paper should not be compared to Journal paper. Conference paper indicates a new scope but not fully developed. It can be highly impactful for the beginners and PhD candidates. Journal paper is the full and final contribution of ones research.
It depends strongly on your point of employment. Being fully employed in private practice, I prefer to publish at conferences (and present courses in my field of expertise as often as possible) as a marketing tool where I can interact directly with potential clients and build a public profile in terms of the expertise I am selling. However, as mentioned, Journal publications are considered of higher value in the academic environment. Hence, if you are mainly involved in an academic environment, publications in a Journal (with a good international academic reputation) will be your first focus, especially if you don't have any ambitions to enter private practice. If you want to keep all future options open in terms of probable future employment it would be recommended to keep maintain a good balance (always a good idea in life). Having achieved certain personal goals/ambitions in life will also influence a future choice in the prefered method of publication.
An excellent input Gerrit and very realistic. In my university we kept all options open and I created a point system that takes care of very good conferences and very good refereed papers.
Article published in a journal is much better than article published in a conference proceedings.
If you need faster feedback regarding the latest scientific innovations, the conference paper has more value. However, for acquiring core ideas of findings, research articles are better. Sans them, the scientific fields remain barren.
To my experience, it actually depends on the work rater than it being so much your choice. If you have a very novel idea, with clear contributions and deep analysis then a journal or letter is the way to go, otherwise you submitting to top tier conferences can be a rewarding experience with insightful feedback. But the key is...please don't publish for publication's sake ;)
In my notion, both conference and journal are necessary for a true researcher. Putting a paper in a good conference is as similarly important as to present that idea there at the conference venue. Because we can mingle with the researchers there with same domain, can get new scope of our work and alter the ideas. Journals are undoubtedly good if it is reputed and peer reviewed. More number of reputed journal publications are majorly preferable.
How the sequence, a researcher should follow while publishing his work?
Should he first present the paper in a conference, get the feedback from the experts at the conference and soon after that go for publishing the same work in a journal?
Or
Should he communicate with the journal first, and as it is evident that processing time for a journal will be more. So in this duration, a person should present the same work at the conference?
a conference presentation gives this opportunity for researchers to find out the weakness of their research and obtain professional feedback. On the other hand, research published in a professional journal with a good impact factor is more reliable than a conference presentation from the experts' point of view.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication