Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study analyzes the discrepancies between Hungarian computer science research evaluation and international standards, revealing a journal-centric approach that misaligns with global practices. By integrating data from multiple databases, the authors mapped the publication trends of Hungarian researchers in top-tier conferences, highlighting a divergence in publication practices between theoretical and applied fields. The findings suggest that many successful researchers are migrating abroad, emphasizing the need for national evaluation systems to recognize conference papers on par with high-impact journals to retain talent and foster local research growth.
Hungarian computer science researchers are increasingly publishing in international conferences, yet the national evaluation system still undervalues this work compared to journals.
This study examines the role of top-tier conference publications in Hungarian computer science research. We show that the national scientometric practice, which is currently journal-oriented, diverges from international norms, creating incentive distortions in researcher evaluation. By linking multiple databases (iCore, DBLP, MTMT, MTA-ATT), we mapped Hungarian-affiliated CORE A* and A conference papers, their temporal and thematic distribution, and author trajectories. Our results indicate that, in theoretical fields, publishing at international conferences became common earlier than in applied fields. At the same time, in applied fields, successful researchers are more likely to continue their careers in foreign institutions or in industry positions. Overall, a substantial share of the already established, internationally most successful researchers are now affiliated with institutions abroad. We recommend recognizing CORE A* papers as equivalent to D1 and CORE A papers as equivalent to Q1 journals in national evaluation systems.
