Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I deleted Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. from the second list because Hyland is no longer an editor. I added three journals.
It appears that apart from two computer science journals, the second list is a subset of the first.
Perhaps this is not too surprising because “algebraic topology” also includes “homotopy theory” in the first list.
Yes, it’s not a fun job combing through many journals and trying to think if the editors are category theorists or not. I should add http://cgasa.sbu.ac.ir/ to this list, for the sake of completeness. (Edit have now done so)
Shame on you David, you did not include probably the oldist one namely the Cahiers! I have put it in … near the start.
Gah, why didn’t I see that! :-( It was an old list that I hadn’t touched for a long time.
Excuses, excuses. ;-)
Should the list of journals publishing category theory be located on a private web? Wouldn’t the nLab itself be a more appropriate venue?
I don’t think having a category theorist as an editor is a necessary condition for a journal to publish category theory. In particular, I would keep MPCPS on a list of category theory journals.
David, any objections to moving the CT journals list to the main nLab?
Not at all, I think it’s better than people needing to edit a page on my web.
Re #9:
In particular, I would keep MPCPS on a list of category theory journals.
But how is MPCPS any different from any other general-purpose (i.e., nonspecialized) mathematics journal? Is there any reason to assume that with its current editorial board (mostly analysts) MPCPS is any more likely to publish a category theory paper than any other general-purpose journal?
In theory, general-purpose journals should publish papers in all areas of mathematics, but in practice, only papers interesting to editors end up published more often than not. Clark Barwick observed as much in his manifesto (sadly, now removed from his website, but still available at https://web.archive.org/web/20190119133802/https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cbarwick/papers/future.pdf).
I just had a quick google at their current editorial board and I don’t think “mostly analysts” is anywhere near accurate. I saw some algebraic and differential geometers, geometric group theorists, etc., who I would expect to at least be more open to category theory than the average analyst. I do agree that the lack of a category theorist brings it down a notch. But I would have assumed, although I guess I don’t really know, that the history of what papers and subjects the journal has published in the past also counts for something.
Do you know when Hyland left? If it was some time ago we could look at the publication history to see if there was a change.
We could split the list into “journals currently having a category theorist on the editorial board” and “journals that have at least in the past published category theory papers”.
Is there someone on the editorial board of “Annals of K-Theory” that you would call a category theorist? No one jumped out at me.
I would not call Balmer, Neeman, or Blumberg category theorists, and there are some other names on the list I’m not sure about. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t relevant editors who might be interested in publishing category theory papers, especially papers that are related to their actual research areas; it’s only to make the same point from #9 that an editor doesn’t have to be a category theorist to publish category theory papers.
Hyland left before I submitted something there (ultimately unsuccessful) in August 2014, so it’s been a while. I had to send the paper to Ben Green, which I can’t say was entirely propitious, though I was treated well.
Re #13: I’d propose three categories: journals specializing in category theory; general-purpose journals with category theorists as editors; general-purpose journals that publish(ed) category theory (in the past).
@Dmitri
sounds reasonable.
If Hyland’s been gone since 2014, then I can offer as evidence of subsequent success at MPCPS this paper, which is not exactly pure category theory, but certainly quite categorical in flavor.
My #13 was written without realizing that the list already includes a column for “relevant editors”. Given that, do we really need to also divide into distinct groups, rather than just recording that bit by the emptiness or nonemptiness of that column?
I did not split the table, but simply reordered the list so that journals specializing in category theory come first.
1 to 20 of 20