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.
1 to 74 of 74
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.
Oh, cool. Nice to see you on the editorial board, Nora!
Updated the published for Higher Structures.
This journal list has silently become a list of journals publishing homotopy theory as well as category theory.
Indeed, many journals are primarily focused on homotopy theory, especially those with “Topology” or “Homotopy” in the title.
I propose to rename this article to “list of journals publishing category theory and homotopy theory”, especially since the journal challenges faced by homotopy theorists are essentially the same as that of category theorists.
re #46:
To avoid a lengthy page title, how about naming it just
“list of journals publishing algebraic topology”
with AlgTop the common ground where category theory and homotopy theory meet.
Incidentally,
we don’t need to say “list of” in a title
it’s redundant to say that a journal publishes,
so that the title should really be something like
“journals on algebraic topology”
with AlgTop the common ground where category theory and homotopy theory meet
Is this really the case? Many journals would happily publish an algebraic topology paper (for example, something on surgery of manifolds, which is unambiguously classified as algebraic topology), but are quite hostile (in the relative sense of a likelihood of publishing) to homotopy theory, and even more so to category theory. G&T is the prime example (it certainly does publish algebraic topology papers), and there are many others.
“Journals on” is appropriate for journals whose primary focus is on the indicated topic, but I wouldn’t say Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society or New York Journal of Mathematics (both are present in the list) is a journal on algebraic topology.
Of course, what is important here is not that journals publish, but rather that they are relatively more likely to accept a paper in the indicated topics. “Journals receptive to category theory” may be more precise, though looks slightly weird.
I agree with removing “list of”.
I agree with Dmitri.
I doubt that applied category theorists (for example) would all consider themselves doing algebraic topology.
Is there a hidden ordering to the list?
Re #55: It is stated at the top:
The general plan for the ordering of journals below should be roughly in the decreasing order of the number of articles they publish in the area of homotopy theory and category theory, as witnessed by the MathSciNet statistics.
So is the last addition – Extracta Mathematicae – the most prolific homotopy/category theory journal, before TAC?
I suspect it’s not and that it’s not meant to be, instead that P. Gaucher in #54 also didn’t spot the ordering instruction. Maybe I am wrong, just bringing this up to attention.
Just to highlight that, again, this new item probably deserves to be moved away from the top position in that list.
Removed “Annals of Pure and Applied Logic” since the only listed editor Martin Hyland has retired from the editorial board, and removed Colin McLarty from as editor for “Journal of Symbolic Logic” for the same reason (Steve Awodey is still editor there).
Added “Mathematical Logic Quaterly” with three category theorists on the editorial board.
Jonas Frey
I think the supposed ordering of this list is way off in many other places. E.g. I don’t think TAMS or Documenta Mathematica publishes more homotopy theory and category theory than Compositionality or Higher Structures.
Personally, I think this supposed ordering is too difficult to maintain. My inclination would be to order the journals alphabetically and just add a “comments” field indicating what we think about how many articles it publishes. Or we could separate them into groups by specialty such as categories, homotopy theory, logic, algebra, and generalist, which would probably be about as useful as the ordering.
Re #69: Compositionality publishes only 4 or 5 papers per year, definitely less than TAMS in MSC codes 18, 19, 55.
Higher Structures publishes about 10 papers per year, this appears to be similar to TAMS. Documenta publishes around 7 papers per year in MSC codes 18, 19, 55.
So perhaps Higher Structures could be moved closer to Documenta in the ordering.
The ordering was never meant to be exact (hence “roughly” in the description), but I definitely think the current order is far more useful than the alphabetical order, or any artifical division into subject areas.
Somebody who is new to the field will immediately see the journals that publish the majority of articles in the field (TAC, JPAA, ACS, Advances, JHRS, HHA, AGT), which is far more useful than the alphabetical order.
Hmm, okay, if that’s what you want. I guess I feel like the total number of articles published in a particular area may not be all that useful as a proxy for what is likely to usually be the real question a reader has in mind, namely “what are the chances of my article in this area being accepted here?”. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that the main reason Compositionality and Higher Structures don’t publish a lot of papers is that they’re fairly new and people don’t submit a lot of papers to them, and my instinct is that a pure category theory paper (for instance) is more likely to get a sympathetic reception there than at a journal like TAMS even if the total number of papers published by TAMS is greater.
Also, how many of those TAMS papers are actually in category theory? Even if homotopy theorists face the same kind of journal challenge as category theorists, is their problem really always solved by the same journals? If we do want to also track journals publishing homotopy theory, maybe the list should be separated into two.
what is likely to usually be the real question a reader has in mind, namely “what are the chances of my article in this area being accepted here?”
I think the real question a reader usually has in mind is (or should be) “what journal should I choose in order to (eventually) get a permanent position?”.
With respect to this, Advances, AGT, and JPAA have considerable name recognition, both informal and formal, as witnessed by various journal lists, e.g., Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Australian, as well as the 1st quartile of the Web of Science Master Journal List or the Scopus database. HHA, JHRS, ACS, TAC are also present in these lists, even if not ranked as highly.
Higher Structures and Compositionality do not have an Impact Factor and are not present in many lists. This makes them very poor choices for somebody at an early stage of his career.
Different readers will have different questions in mind. A reader who already has a permanent position will not be asking your question. A reader who is interested in a permanent position below the R1 level, where prestige of the journals you publish in matters less, may also not be asking your question. And in any case, I think that in general, the total number of papers published in a given field is an even worse proxy for name recognition or impact factor than it is for the likelihood of a new article being accepted, even if it happens at the moment that some of the same journals appear high or low on both rankings.
1 to 74 of 74