If you work in computer science or a related discipline, you have almost certainly encountered the term "CORE ranking" when deciding where to submit your research. Understanding what these letters actually mean — and where they fall short — is essential for making smart submission decisions throughout your academic career.
What Is the CORE Ranking System?
The Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE) maintains a ranked list of computer science conference venues. First developed in Australia as a tool to help evaluate research output for tenure and grant purposes, the CORE ranking system has since become internationally influential, particularly across Australian, European, and Asian institutions. The list is periodically reviewed and updated by committees of domain experts, with venues assessed on factors such as citation impact, selectivity, and reputation within the field.
What Each Tier Actually Means
The four tiers carry distinct implications for how your work will be perceived:
- A* (Flagship): The top tier. These are the most prestigious venues in their subfield — think NeurIPS, ICSE, or SIGCOMM. Acceptance rates are typically low (often under 20%), and a publication here is considered a major career milestone.
- A (Excellent): Still highly regarded and competitive. An A-ranked publication is a solid credential for promotion and grant applications, and for many institutions it counts nearly as highly as A*.
- B (Good): Respectable venues that are competitive but more accessible. B-ranked publications contribute positively to a research profile, particularly early in a career or in niche subfields.
- C (Other Ranked): These venues are peer-reviewed and legitimate, but carry less weight in formal evaluation processes. Publishing at C-ranked conferences may have limited impact on promotion decisions at research-intensive universities.
How Rankings Affect Career Promotion
At many universities — particularly in Australia, parts of Europe, and increasingly in Asia — annual performance reviews and promotion applications explicitly ask researchers to categorise their publications by CORE rank. A strong portfolio of A* and A publications is often a prerequisite for promotion to Associate Professor or above. Hiring committees at research universities also scan CVs with this lens. Understanding this dynamic early in your career helps you allocate submission effort strategically rather than scattering papers across many venues indiscriminately.
How Rankings Influence Grant Applications
Funding bodies in several countries use CORE rankings as a proxy for research quality when assessing track records. Grant panels that lack domain-specific expertise often rely on venue prestige as a quick quality signal. A publication record weighted toward A* and A venues can strengthen an application considerably, while a long list of C-ranked outputs — even if the work is genuinely excellent — may raise questions in competitive funding rounds.
Limitations You Must Understand
CORE rankings have real and well-documented limitations. First, coverage is uneven: the list is strongest in mainstream computer science subfields and much weaker in interdisciplinary areas, emerging fields, and adjacent disciplines such as information science or human-computer interaction at the edges of computing. Second, the rankings can lag behind reality — a venue's trajectory may have changed significantly since the last review cycle. Third, the system is inherently Anglo-centric in its origins, and regional conferences of genuine importance in Asia, Africa, or Latin America may be absent or undervalued. Always cross-check a venue's reputation through direct conversations with senior colleagues in your specific subfield.
Alternative Ranking Systems Worth Knowing
CORE is not the only game in town. Brazil's Qualis system evaluates journals and conferences across all disciplines and is mandatory for Brazilian researchers but is also consulted internationally. DBLP, while not a ranking system per se, provides bibliometric data that many researchers use to informally assess venue impact. For interdisciplinary work, field-specific assessments — such as those from ACM, IEEE, or domain-specific bodies — often carry more weight than CORE alone. When submitting to venues listed on platforms like