Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Best ‘general’ journals of philosophy, 2018

Brian Leiter

636 votes in our latest poll, on the best "general" journals of philosophy (those that publish in multiple areas).  The "top 20" are bolded–beyond that the results are even less meaningful I expect.   Recall that The Monist was wrongly omitted from the poll, and might have made the top 20.  I suspect that among readers of this blog there is probably some bias in favor of on-line, open access journals, which might help Philosopher's Imprint and Ergo, although the former has performed strongly in these polls for many years now.   Comments are open for readers to identify other journals that should have been included or to otherwise comment on the results.   (Submit comments only once, they may take awhile to appear.)

1. Philosophical Review  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Mind  loses to Philosophical Review by 371–165
3. Nous  loses to Philosophical Review by 386–153, loses to Mind by 272–256
4. Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 397–133, loses to Nous by 326–206
5. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to Philosophical Review by 420–121, loses to Journal of Philosophy by 303–231
6. Australasian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 466–82, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 433–115
7. Philosopher's Imprint  loses to Philosophical Review by 462–77, loses to Australasian Journal of Philosophy by 299–227
8. Philosophical Studies  loses to Philosophical Review by 476–72, loses to Philosopher's Imprint by 282–245
9. Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 475–59, loses to Philosophical Studies by 303–206
10. Analysis  loses to Philosophical Review by 489–62, loses to Philosophical Quarterly by 279–236
11. Synthese  loses to Philosophical Review by 499–60, loses to Analysis by 366–159
12. Canadian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 508–31, loses to Synthese by 311–191
13. Erkenntnis  loses to Philosophical Review by 501–45, loses to Canadian Journal of Philosophy by 253–216
14. American Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 502–30, loses to Erkenntnis by 253–218
15. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 513–23, loses to American Philosophical Quarterly by 233–195
16. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  loses to Philosophical Review by 512–25, loses to Pacific Philosophical Quarterly by 247–213
17. Ergo  loses to Philosophical Review by 491–38, loses to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society by 246–217
18. European Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 491–47, loses to Ergo by 241–203
19. Journal of the American Philosophical Association  loses to Philosophical Review by 489–30, loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 244–199
20. Thought  loses to Philosophical Review by 511–15, loses to Journal of the American Philosophical Association by 226–193
21. Philosophical Perspectives  loses to Philosophical Review by 503–13, loses to Thought by 198–196
22. Inquiry  loses to Philosophical Review by 502–21, loses to Philosophical Perspectives by 192–178
23. Dialectica  loses to Philosophical Review by 504–25, loses to Inquiry by 206–171
24. Analytic Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 498–21, loses to Dialectica by 196–171
25. Ratio  loses to Philosophical Review by 505–17, loses to Analytic Philosophy by 186–184
26. Midwest Studies in Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 500–13, loses to Ratio by 198–163
27. Philosophical Issues  loses to Philosophical Review by 498–11, loses to Midwest Studies in Philosophy by 191–167
28. Philosophical Topics  loses to Philosophical Review by 499–5, loses to Philosophical Issues by 187–120
29. Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 499–9, loses to Philosophical Topics by 198–126
30. Southern Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 507–16, loses to Philosophy by 178–149
31. Metaphilosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 494–16, loses to Southern Journal of Philosophy by 175–147
32. Philosophia  loses to Philosophical Review by 504–5, loses to Metaphilosophy by 173–109
33. Res Philosophica  loses to Philosophical Review by 500–6, loses to Philosophia by 150–115
34. Review of Metaphysics  loses to Philosophical Review by 498–13, loses to Res Philosophica by 139–128
35. International Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 485–14, loses to Review of Metaphysics by 179–9

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply to Synthese??? Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 responses to “Best ‘general’ journals of philosophy, 2018”

  1. Devon Belcher

    Some of those top 5 have absolutely terrible practices. They will not get back to you for a year; when they do, they don't actually get back to you. And the referee system is broken.

    Reply
  2. Alex Miller

    I'd have been inclined to include the University College Dublin based International Journal of Philosophical Studies – probably wouldn't make the top 20, but would be a contender for top 30 or thereabouts?

    Reply
  3. Pedantic Grad

    What happened to the Journal of Philosophical Research? Should be top 30, right?

    Reply
  4. Jonathan Birch

    I compared this with the 2015 poll here: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/09/the-top-ten-general-philosophy-journals-2015.html

    There is obviously a stable prestige hierarchy in the profession, which polls like this reliably reproduce.

    The standing of Philosopher's Imprint seems to have improved, but only slightly.

    The most noticeable change is that The Journal of Philosophy has fallen away from Mind and Nous.

    Reply
  5. Anon

    Perhaps Theoria (the Sweedish one, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17552567) should have been included.

    Reply
  6. Matt

    The one journal that seems very seriously under-ranked to me is the European Journal of Philosophy. I guess it might publish a bit less really technical or formal matter than some ranked ahead of it, but it's a great place for the history of philosophy, political philosophy, and many other topics, and has a broader range of interesting issues than many, perhaps most, of the journals ranked above it. I think I vote for it at 6 or 7, and I'd think it should surely be top 10.

    Reply
  7. John Fischer

    I agree with the first comment, posted by Devon Belcher. I interpret the poll as ranking journals in terms of the quality (or perceived quality) of the articles that are actually published. Or perhaps it is simply (or primarily) measuring the reputations of the journal, especially in terms of the desirability and visibility of publishing in these journals. But this leaves out the "administrative" side of things–the promptness and professionalism of the reviewing of manuscripts, the time to publication, and so forth. In these respects some of the top-ranked journals are (or at least have been) abysmal. Noteworthy in their excellence even along this dimension are the Philosophical Review, Nous, and PPR. There are other top-ten journals that are quite professional, but others (that will remained unnamed–at least by me) fall short, and have for a long time.

    Reply
  8. Post-Doc

    Repeating a speculative suggestion about the previous journal poll: I suspect that journals which publish a high volume of papers get a somewhat artificial boost from the fact that people tend to up-vote journals that they themselves have published in – for obvious self-interested reasons.
    I suspect that the ranking of Synthese may reflect this. (My sense is that Synthese is not obviously more prestigious than the Canadian, APQ or Pacific.) And perhaps also Phil Studies – which also publishes many more articles per year than its nearby competitors.

    Reply
  9. Synthese???

    I don't know Post-Doc, the people I talk with seem to think of Synthese as more prestigious than those journals ranked below it in this poll. An explanation very similar to yours can explain this though: people are likely to think of journals they publish in as more prestigious, and Synthese is probably the biggest philosophy journal in terms of number of articles it publishes. So, the ranking of Synthese as higher than Erkenntnis, APQ, etc may be simply because they publish a lot work, not because the articles it publishes are really any better. Does this mean we shouldn't prefer Synthese over APQ, Erkenntnis, etc? No. All that really mattes in the end for promotion etc is perception, so the fact that people feel Synthese is better than these journals is sufficient to prefer it over them.

    On a separate topic, I noticed Ratio fell quite a bit between this poll and the last one. I wonder why that is?

    Reply
  10. synthese? synthese.

    Synthese may publish a lot, but it is known that their acceptance rate is absolutely miniscule. Hence the high ranking, perhaps.

    Reply
  11. Post-Doc

    Yes, the two hypotheses/explanations are not really in competition, right? It seems psychologically plausible enough to me *both* that some people cynically/self-interestedly rate the journals they have published in as more prestigious than (they think that) the wider philosophical community thinks of them, *and* that some people just tend to think of the journals they have published in as genuinely more prestigious in the eyes of the wider philosophical community. In one case the self-interest operates consciously, in the other sub-consciously.

    Agree entirely that perception is everything here. I doubt anyone could really say that they are in a position to competently judge the real average philosophical worth of all the articles published in all these different journals, given the massive number of articles that are published and how few any one person can realistically read. (And be in an expert enough position to judge their worth.) Certainly when I cast my vote, I just tried to rate how the journals are perceived. E.g. in fact I think that far too many of the articles in Analysis are making very minor and uninteresting little objections or adding tiny little epicycles to someone else's position. But I still rated it somewhere around the fringe of the top 10 since that seems to be how people generally think of Analysis.

    Reply
  12. An Asian Philosophy

    I also think that Philosophical Studies and Synthesis are overrated because they published more papers. True, they published many good papers, but they also publish lots of mundane ones. I would think that APQ and PPQ on average are of higher qualities than Synthesis.

    Besides, I don't rank invite-only journals. I don't trust the quality of their papers simply on the venues.

    Reply
  13. Another postdoc

    I concur with the comments on Synthese being overrated because of its publishing volume. This is also reflected in some other rankings, such as Google Scholar's h5-index.

    Reply
  14. Pendaran

    I wonder whether the top five journals or so are overrated simply because they have 95% rejection rates? Do people confuse exclusivity with quality? Most certainly. Do those journals really publish better articles? Hard to tell personally. It seems to me that very good articles appear in all of these journals.

    Regarding Synthese, I’ve published a lot in the journal. They are a joy to work with compared to many others. Maybe they are ranking well because authors like how they’re treated by the editorial staff.

    I read Synthese and Phil Studies. I can’t tell a difference in quality between them.

    Reply
  15. Brad

    I suspect that one reason Synthese has done well (and probably should have done better) in this poll is because there are some debates in my areas of research where large portions of the debate have played out in this journal. Similarly, one reason I do not read much in the top seven is that they publish very little in philosophy of science. This was not always the case. But I can think of few recent classics in philosophy of science that have been published in the journals ranked 1-7 in this poll. Instead, I read Phil Sci, BJPS, SHPS, Synthese, Erkenntnis, ISPS.

    Reply
  16. Post-Doc

    It is, of course, true that Synthese and Erkenntnis tend to publish (proportionally) much more philosophy of science than the the other journals above them. (And for what its worth, I personally like that about these journals.) But I don't see why that should be a reason for Synthese (and/or Erkenntnis) to have done well in the poll. For by the same token Synthese and Erkenntnis publish (proportionally) much less ethics and aesthetics and almost no history of philosophy. So whilst their focus may be attractive to you (and me!) and other philosophers of science, it will presumably be considered unattractive by just as many (if not more) philosophers who work on ethics, aesthetics or history of philosophy.

    (I suspect that, say, 10 or 15 years ago neither Synthese nor Erkenntnis would have been considered 'general' philosophy journals at all – though these days they do publish papers on a wider range of topics.)

    Reply
  17. Pendaran

    In 2009 while I was doing my MA, I was told to treat Synthese as a general journal. So, they've been general for quite some time.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress