More on journal rankings: the case of Australasia
Moving to the front from here:
Readers may be aware of new attempts to rank philosophy journals, such as this attempt in Australasia. Journals are ranked A-C with a special A* for the very best of A journals. A sample (and far from exhaustive):
Journals ranked A*
Analysis
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
Ethics
European Journal of Philosophy
Hypatia
Journal of Philosophy
Kant-Studien
Midwest Studies in Philosophy
Mind
Mind and Language
Monist
Nous
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly
Philosophers' Imprint
Philosophical Quarterly
Philosophical Review
Philosophical Studies
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Philosophy East and West
Phronesis
Political Theory
Journals ranked A
American Philosophical Quarterly
Asian Philosophy
Epoche
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
European Journal of Political Theory
Fichte-Studien
International Journal of Philosophical Studies
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Journal of Ethics
Journal of Philosophical Research
Journal of Political Philosophy
Journal of Social Philosophy
Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology
Kantian Review
Law and Philosophy
Logique et Analyse
Metaphilosophy
Philosophical Topics
Philosophy
Philosophy and Social Criticism
Philosophy Compass
Politics, Philosophy, Economics
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
Ratio
Review of Metaphysics
Social Theory and Practice
Utilitas
Journals ranked B
Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain
Derrida Today
Hegel-Studien
Indian Journal of Philosophic Studies
Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy
Journal of Indian Philosophy
Journal of Moral Philosophy
Owl of Minerva
Philosophical Books
Philosophy and Theology
Public Affairs Quarterly
Ratio Juris
Res Publica
Journals ranked C
APA Newsletters
Collingwood and British Idealism Studies
Ethical Perspectives
Journal of Indian Philosophy and Religion
Philo
Philosophical Writings
Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science
Review Journal of Political Philosophy
Think
Not ranked
History of Political Thought [This is the surprise of the list: it should be at least A, if not A*.]
International Journal of Applied Philosophy
Legal Theory [Another huge surprise given that Law and Philosophy is listed and scores highly: I would argue that LT should be at least A, if not A*.]
COMMENTARY
The Australasian Association of Philosophy's cover letter is well-written. It notes that there are perhaps far more problems arising from using rankings than not using them. I found the general sentiment agreeably cautious.
A real effort has gone into identifying journals. This list is far more impressive than all others that I have seen in terms of its size.
One very serious problem is that some of the journals do not exist. For example, the list notes a Filosofick? Casopis and a Filosoficky Casopis. Both are awareded 'C' and I imagine both refer to the latter: the former does not exist. Moreover, they list a non-existent Journal of the Hegel Society of Great Britain -- this is awarded a 'B' not unlike the Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain which does exist. Finally, I am fairly certain that the 'A' ranked (!) Moral Theory and Practice journal does not exist, while the 'A' ranked Ethical Theory and Moral Practice does exist.
A further problem is that there are mistakes on journals that are included. For example, the Aristotelian Society's publications are listed as 'peer reviewed'. In addition, the Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain is listed as 'peer reviewed'. It is the case in this month's meeting of the Hegel Society we agreed to begin including work that will be peer reviewed, but it is not a fully peer reviewed journal at present. Neither is the Aristotelian proceedings or supplement. These are then wrong.
The Journal of Moral Philosophy is ranked 'B'? In previous journal ranking schemes, the Journal of Moral Philosophy has consistently ranked alongside other 'Journal of' titles, such as the Journal of Ethics, Journal of Political Philosophy, Journal of Social Philosophy, and others, including the ERIH rankings of philosophy journals. I was then surprised to find these journals all ranked again together, but without the JMP.
I am not sure what explains this. The JMP has an international editorial board, submissions are peer reviewed with two or three readers for papers, and our acceptance rate is now under 10%. We are listed in the Philosopher's Index and other similar databases. It is then curious that journals less international with much higher acceptance rates than ours were ranked higher in several cases. I have written to the Australasian Association of Philosophy about this and, hopefully, a change will be forthcoming.
UPDATE: The JMP has now been upgraded to "A" (see here).
Posts
25 comments:
It's a minor thing in comparison to some other concerns (mostly noted by the Aus. society) but it's also a bit odd to rank the APA newsletters all together since each is run in a quite different way, by completely distinct editorial groups. Some are essentially newsletters- publishing short informational pieces, notices, reviews, and the like. But, just to take an example, the Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, runs its main articles much like a regular journal, with blind peer review (or at least did under some recent editors- it might have a different format now) and the newsletter on philosophy and law regularly published articles for special issues that are from top scholars and which could easily be published in a regular journal. (Many of them are solicited but I'm not sure if all of them are or not.) I do not know what the editorial practices are at all of the newsletters but since they are all edited distinctly and some published quite good pieces regularly this seemed like an odd rating to me.
(I should note that I co-published a short piece, w/ a Russian colleague of mine, on philosophy in Russia several years ago in the Newsletter on international cooperation so I'm not completely disinterested here, but the piece was clearly meant to be informative rather than deeply scholarly or philosophical so I think there's no grounds for a claim of bias regarding my claims here.)
I couldn't agree more. Given the thoroughness with which they tried to do their job, I cannot see why they didn't give differential rankings for the different newsletters given the differences between them...often quite substantial
Synthese isn't even on this list?! That's pretty absurd.
It's strange that history of philosophy is pretty much ignored (JHP, HPQ, British JHP, Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie) -- but Kant-Studien is up there.
Have I missed something or is it really the case in Australia that the only historical figures recognized are Kant and Hegel. I looked andlooked and I could not find JOurnal of the History of Philosophy, Bristish Journal for the History of Philosophy, History of Philosophy, Oxford Studies in EArly MOdern Philosophy, etc. etc. Who is missing what?
Synthese?
Synthese *is* on the AAP list. The journals I noted were only a sample and not the full list. Please go to the link I provide at the front of the post for a ranking of all journals.
I'm totally agreed on the history point. Why put Hobbes Studies, Hume Studies, and Locke Studies up, but ignore JHP and BJHP.
Also, Brit Journal for Phil Science was missing....
NOTE: Many of these journals *ARE* listed on the AAP list. The list I provide is only a selected list that is meant to give a flavour to the rankings . . . and underscore the view that while most of A* should be A*, it is unclear that all A's are A, all B's are B, etc.
Please consult the full AAP journal list. A link is at the top of this post.
Actually, Synthese is *not* on the list (only some other journal called 'Revue de Synthese'). Or am I missing something?
Thom, I didn't find Synthese on this excel spreadsheet. I found something called revue de synthese http://revue-de-synthese.eu/ and I found synthesis philosophica http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=casopis&id_casopis=73&lang=en
but nothing for Synthese.
Nope, Synthese is not on the master list. They have "Revue de Synthese" which is not the same thing. Also, the master list does not have Philosophy of Science. They do have "Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Assoc" which, according to the executive secretary of the Philosophy of Science Assn, who was just in my office, does not exist. It was folded into the journal Philosophy of Science 10 or 15 years ago.
The bigger list does include the Archiv GP, but not of the other history journals Margaret mentions.
Margaret Atherton is right. I've looked at the full list and failed to find not only Synthese, but also the British Journal of the History of Philosophy, the Journal of the History of Philosophy, and History of Philosophy Quarterly. All deserving of their A ranking. But there are certainly many journals there I've never heard of, and probably never will again!
I stand corrected and shocked (although, again, my list is only a small sample).
I recommend that readers immediately contact the AAP and demand Synthese's inclusion (as well as that of the BJHP).
It's not just BJPS that's ignored -- philosophy of science is completely ignored!
Since Leiter drew attention to this post (which I am *extremely* grateful for), I have heard from a member of the AAP committee that drew up these rankings. I understand that most, if not all, of the journals missing on this list are included on other lists, such as politics, law, and other subjects.
I am also delighted to report that the JMP's "B" ranking is being reconsidered in light of evidence I provided.
It would be nice to see the methodology this exercise used. There is an analysis of the ESF ranking of philosophy journals in terms citation rates done at Certain Doubts, for instance, that is very informative.
I'm still puzzled--what are the "other subjects" in which one may be expected to find journals in the history of philosophy?
The main history of philosophy journals aren't on the excel spreadsheet, as others have noted. Thom Brooks suggests that "most, if not all, of the journals missing on this list are included on other lists, such as politics, law, and other subjects."
It would be interesting to know where the history of philosophy journals are listed -- under "history" rather than under "philosophy"?
That in itself would bespeak a certain (controversial) attitude about the relationship between philosophy and its history.
Synthese, BJPS, JHP, BJHP, HPQ, and many other journals are listed under category 2202, "History and Philosophy of Specific Fields", in the AAP rankings. To find them, change the selection under the "FoR" field in the Excel document.
Thanks to David Chalmers for his excellent detective work. I take it that these lists are the product of some obscure classifying body, and those of us who have had our noses out of joint are just going to have to get over it?
The rankings are being compiled by the Australian government, as part of an exercise that is intended to measure academics' research output (as with the British RAE) and consequently determine funding decisions for universities. The categories were set by the government. The government (through the Australian Research Council, or ARC) released a draft set of rankings in June. These were widely regarded in suboptimal in various respects, especially in giving researchers in various areas and traditions of philosophy (e.g. Asian philosophy, Continental philosophy, feminist philosophy, history of philosophy) less opportunity to publish in top-ranked outlets. The AAP took submissions from various groups of philosophers and produced the revised list discussed here, which was submitted to the ARC as a recommendation (along with submissions from many other bodies). There will presumably be a revised ARC list at some point. Of course the whole exercise is unsatisfactory in many respects (as discussed in the AAP cover letter), and the revised list is still extremely imperfect.
I like Analysis, but it's strange to see it at the highest ranking; it's not even peer reviewed.
I simply cannot agree more with Dave Chalmers and I very strongly encourage readers to look at the well-stated cover letter the AAP submitted (available on their website, if I am not mistaken). Yes, there are major problems with ranking journals in general. However, this is highlighted along with a variety of concerns by the AAP all of which I completely accept (for what it is worth) as I have made plain in my post and communications with the AAP. In fact, I could not agree more with them --- whatever the disagreements on the rankings of individual journals.
Post a Comment