<![CDATA[In recent years, data processing has become an issue across all disciplines. Good data processing can provide decision-making recommendations. Data processing is covered in academic data processing publications, including those in computer science. This topic has grown over the past three years, demonstrating that data processing is expanding and diversifying, and there is a great deal of interest in this area of study. Within the journal, groupings (quartiles) indicate the journal's influence on other similar studies. SCImago provides this category. There are four quartiles, with the highest quartile being 1 and the lowest being 4. There are, however, numerous differences in class quartiles, with different quartile values for the same journal in different disciplines. Therefore, a method of categorization is provided to solve this issue. Classification is a machine-learning technique that groups data based on the supplied label class. Ensemble Boosting and Bagging with Decision Tree (DT) and Gaussian Nave Bayes (GNB) were utilized in this study. Several modifications were made to the ensemble algorithm's depth and estimator settings to examine the influence of adding values on the resultant precision. In the DT algorithm, both variables are altered, whereas, in the GNB algorithm, just the estimator's value is modified. Based on the average value of the accuracy results, it is known that the best algorithm for computer science datasets is GNB Bagging, with values of 68.96%, 70.99%, and 69.05%. Second-place XGBDT has 67.75% accuracy, 67.69% precision, and 67.83 recall. The DT Bagging method placed third with 67.31 percent recall, 68.13 percent precision, and 67.30 percent accuracy. The fourth sequence is the XGBoost GNB approach, which has an accuracy of 67.07%, a precision of 68.85%, and a recall of 67.18%. The Adaboost DT technique ranks in the fifth position with an accuracy of 63.65%, a precision of 64.21 %, and a recall of 63.63 %. Adaboost GNB is the least efficient algorithm for this dataset since it only achieves 43.19 % accuracy, 48.14 % precision, and 43.2% recall. The results are still quite far from the ideal. Hence the proposed method for journal quartile inequality issues is not advised.]]>
