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.
Thanks!
Thanks Dmitri!
I have rolled back to Dmitri’s revision 8, thereby undoing revision 9 which broke the entry syntax. Due to the broken table it’s hard to see what it was that rev 9 tried to change.
If it’s author (Ivan Di Liberti, I assume?) sees this here, please let us know and we can try to implement it.
The sole difference between two versions was a new, empty column, titled “Impact Factor”.
Puh-lease. If we mention IF we need to link to good resources explaining why it’s a terrible measure. A little push towards a change of culture of the fetishisation of a non-informative statistic of a highly-skewed distribution would be good.
I find this newly proposed classification somewhat questionable.
Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra was placed in the category “Category Theory and Categorical Logic”, but the overwhelming majority of articles in this journal have nothing to do with this topic.
Annals of K-theory was placed in the category “Algebra”, which is a massive stretch if we look at the list of article published in it: most articles are about algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, noncommutative geometry, not algebra.
Topology and its Applications was placed in the category “Homotopy Theory”, but this journal is mostly about general topology.
Algebraic & Geometric Topology is mostly about knot theory and low-dimensional topology, not homotopy theory.
Compositionality, at least judging by papers published so far, does not have theoretical computer science as its primary area.
Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. is now duplicated.
I hope Ivan sees this and reacts. Ivan?
Independently of debate over the accuracy of the topic subdivision, it breaks the flow of the table.
A better design might be to instead add a further column “topic focus” or similar. That would keep the table intact and would allow to react to Dmitri’s points in #22 more flexibly.
Re #2: It looks like Ivan Di Liberti is unaware of the discussion happening here.
Should this list include also journals that published category theory in the past? This would be mostly of historical interest, I guess.
One could argue that a list useful to the current researchers is more desirable…
One could argue that a list useful to the current researchers is more desirable…
yes, that was my original intention for the list. Who browses old issues of generalist journals for papers on a certain subfield? Reading back over TAC or even 1970s JPAA I get. But MPCPS is rather broad.You’re more likely to end up there because of a reference.
Re #28: I concur.
By the way, the old list on your personal wiki is still up and shows up in search results when one searches for “journals in category theory”. Sometimes this is confusing.
OK, I should clear it and add a link to the nLab page
Adding links to editors nLab pages. In a regular nLab page it might not make sense to link every occurrence, but this is a table and can and has been rearranged. One really needs all the relevant info on each line. (I haven’t done all of them, but the ones I knew were in the nLab I added)
Good. I suggest (no: urge) that generally, also on other pages, one should not omit hyperlinks on the assumption that the reader has seen a term hyperlinked before.
Because, first it’s pointless to write hypertext wikis and then assume that readers follow a linear path as in a textbook. Second, no harm is done with a term being hyperlinked every single time it appears. (Just for this purpose we once toned down the color coding, and we can tone it down further should that still be an issue.)
MPCPS published Semantics of higher inductive types. I would argue for keeping it on the list. The main purpose I see for such a list is to help people find journals where they can submit a category theory paper, not journals where they’re likely to find some category theory papers by browsing through the issues, and I think MPCPS belongs on such a list.
I knew this sounded familiar – we discussed MPCPS last year here.
Re #34: Who was the editor responsible for your MPCPS article?
Yeah, but we could in principle submit a category theory paper to Annals, Acta, JAMS etc—just not with much hope of getting accepted. I guess one thing that sets Advances apart from other major generalist journals is that Street is on the editorial board and seems to be quite good at getting CT papers to land there. Without a category theorist (or ally) editor, the argument for including a journal becomes weaker.
Who was the editor responsible for your MPCPS article?
I don’t know. The current submission process doesn’t ask to select an editor, and I don’t think any of our communications came from a particular editor or mentioned anyone by name other than the managing editor Green.
Maybe the solution is to include some more substantive remarks about each journal on the list? E.g. for MPCPS we could say “in the past there was a category theorist editor; now that’s no longer the case but it has still published at least a few category-theoretic papers”?
Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
Substantive remarks are the best, of course.
1 to 40 of 40