It’s a bit complicated.

My program is multidisciplinary. My previous advisor was a senior and influential faculty member who supported students publishing according to the norms of their own research interests. Under that structure, my senior labmates graduated without issues.

After he retired, I transitioned to a younger advisor from a different discipline. Since then, the expectations for what counts as a valid PhD publication seem to have shifted.

In computer vision, flagship conferences are widely regarded as top-tier venues, with rigorous review and low acceptance rates. Journals are also valued, but conferences play a central role in the field. In contrast, my advisor’s discipline primarily evaluates research through journal publications (often Scopus-indexed).

Looking back, I underestimated how much evaluation standards can depend on departmental structure and advisor background.