The Peer Perception Index evaluates journal and conference prestige by analyzing where researchers from top-ranked universities choose to publish , rather than relying on citation-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor. By weighting first-author affiliations using Times Higher Education rankings, PPI provides a quality-centric view of academic reputation.
PPI analyzes where researchers from top-tier institutions choose to publish, revealing true academic prestige beyond citation counts.
Identify first-author affiliations from research publications.
We collect comprehensive metadata from academic papers published over the past 18 years (since 2008), including:
Analyze research publications published in journals and conferences
Identify first authors and their affiliated universities or organizations
Data source: Clarivate Insights, Web of Science (WoS)
Classify institutions using Times Higher Education (THE) global university rankings
Each first-author affiliation is classified using the Times Higher Education (THE) global university rankings. Institutions are grouped into four prestige brackets:
λc₁ = No. of research publications in the journal/conference with first author affiliated to universities ranked 1ˢᵗ – 50ᵗʰ in THE global ranking.
λc₂ = No. of research publications in the journal/conference with first author affiliated to universities ranked 51ˢᵗ – 100ᵗʰ in THE global ranking.
λc₃ = No. of research publications in the journal/conference with first author affiliated to universities ranked 101ˢᵗ – 150ᵗʰ in THE global ranking.
λc₄ = No. of research publications in the journal/conference with first author affiliated to universities ranked 151ˢᵗ – 200ᵗʰ in THE global ranking.
These groups represent decreasing levels of institutional prestige, with higher-ranked universities given greater importance in the computation.
Compute the Peer Perception Index (PPI) using weighted formula
The Peer Perception Index (PPI) is computed by assigning different weights to publications from each ranking bracket and normalizing them by the total number of publications. The weights reflect the relative importance of each prestige group.
This formulation assigns 50% of the total weight to publications originating from universities ranked 1–50, with progressively lower weights for lower-ranked brackets.
Based on the final PPI, journals and conferences are categorized to reflect their standing among academic peers:
Most prestigious journals/conferences
Well-respected journals/conferences
Low-quality journals/conferences
Borderline predatory journals/conferences
Journals/conferences with extremely negative peer perception
Normalization ensures fair comparison across disciplines with different publishing patterns.
The PPI methodology relies on several assumptions that users should understand when interpreting scores.
We assume researchers at top-ranked universities are well-informed about journal/conference prestige and have strong incentives to publish in the most respected venues. This may not hold equally across all disciplines or career stages.
University rankings themselves have methodological limitations and may not perfectly capture research quality. We use Times Higher Education (THE) ranking for this analysis.
Publishing norms vary significantly across disciplines. While other metrics (such as citations, impact factor) vary across disciplines, PPI normalizes data with respect to the total papers published in a specific journal or conference. Therefore, in our opinion, PPI scores can be easily compared across multiple disciplines.
PPI can be used alongside traditional metrics like impact factor, not as a replacement. It provides a different perspective on journal/conference quality focused on institutional prestige rather than citations.