Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.17657

General Science Ranking (GSR): An Open-Source, Citation-Normalized Journal and Conference Classification System for Computer Science and Medicine

Zhikai Yu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The academic journal zoning system is central to evaluating research talent, funding, and institutions. The CAS journal partition system, one of East Asia's most widely used tools, will cease operation in March 2026, creating a policy gap. Existing alternatives have major limitations: JCR depends on paid databases and excludes conferences; Scimago/CiteScore relies on Elsevier proprietary data; expert-based rankings such as CCF and CORE lack quantitative foundations and update slowly. This paper proposes the General Science Ranking (GSR), a multidimensional bibliometric framework built entirely on open-source data. GSR covers 500 computer science venues (397 journals and 103 conferences) and 500 medical journals using OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar. Scores combine four indicators: field-weighted citation impact (FWCI), two-year impact factor (IF2), five-year h-index (h5), and citation CAGR. For CS conferences lacking citation time-series data, IF2-approx was estimated from calibration on 1.41 million OpenAlex journal papers. Rankings adopt fixed quotas: Q1 (1-50), Q2 (51-100), Q3 (101-200), and Q4 (201+). All code and data are open source. In CS rankings, conferences and journals each occupy 25 of the top 50 Q1 positions. The leading conferences are NeurIPS, ICCV, ICLR, and CVPR. In medicine, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians ranks first, followed by New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. Agreement with JCR Q1 reaches 84 percent in medicine and 71 percent in CS. Sensitivity analysis shows only 1.7 percent to 2.5 percent of CS conferences change partitions, indicating robustness. GSR provides a free, reproducible, field-normalized ranking system covering both journals and conferences, making it suitable for institutional evaluation policies.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.DB

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zhikai Yu. 2026-05-19. General Science Ranking (GSR): An Open-Source, Citation-Normalized Journal and Conference Classification System for Computer Science and Medicine. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17657

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation

Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Reading the Data Back: Enriching Variable-Level Metadata for Model-Data Consistency Checks

Purpose: Research data repositories often lack variable-level metadata. Model-choice screening, checking whether a reported model suits the values of its outcome variable, also requires summaries of those values and links to the analyses that use them. We ask how repositories can represent and acquire them as metadata with evidence and review histories. Methods: We propose a metadata application profile compatible with the Data Documentation Initiative Cross-Domain Integration (DDI-CDI) model, linking versioned variables and empirical profiles to reported analyses, estimators, and analysis roles. Extraction provenance and review decisions are recorded separately. We evaluate streaming data profiling, deterministic extraction from Stata and R code, and language-model extraction of analysis records from papers. Results: A worked export of one replication package illustrates the profile: it passes shape and interchange checks and answers four queries, one of which returns the analyses that raise no alert. Screening 4,868 replication datasets from six political-science journals links outcomes to profiled columns in 1,440 deposits and flags 965, including 14 of the 21 deposits with a hand-verified linear model on a count, proportion, binary, or ordinal outcome. AI-assisted adjudication yields 55% precision on a near-balanced sample of 119 count and proportion candidates; screening rules were developed on the same corpus. Conclusion: The profile makes analysis-variable relationships queryable while preserving evidence and review history; screening yields review candidates with context. Code, metadata, and measurements are released.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

From Code Archival to Knowledge Graph: Bridging Software Heritage, COAR Notify and Wikidata

Software is a first-class scientific object, yet validated links between source code and the scholarly record remain largely absent from the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud, isolating archived artefacts from semantic discovery. This paper presents an end-to-end reconciliation pipeline that harvests, validates, and models publication-to-repository pairs from sources where the link between a paper and its source code is explicit and editorially verified: the software-centric journals JOSS, SoftwareX, and IPOL, together with the reproducibility reports of the SIGMOD Availability and Reproducibility Initiative (ARI). This yields a curated corpus of 4,397 $\langle$DOI, repository-URL$\rangle$ pairs. We design two distinct application profiles grounded in Wikidata classes (one for scholarly articles, one for software instances) aligned with the schema.org and CodeMeta vocabularies. This architectural separation enables rule-based reconciliation at two granularities: lightweight, inline publication references or standalone, first-class Wikidata software nodes equipped with SWHIDs, Software Heritage's content-addressed identifiers. A read-only lookup against Wikidata shows that only 82 of the harvested repositories were already modelled there; human-reviewed batches have since created 4{,}182 new software items cross-linked to their articles. We further show that payloads of the emerging COAR Notify protocol, an external effort we do not develop, map natively onto our input format, so the same backend could later serve a live enrichment stream. Our core contribution is a pair of application profiles that turn Wikidata into a connector between the scholarly record and archived source code; we openly release all code, application profiles, and harvested datasets.

cs.DL↗