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 66 of 66
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.
1 to 66 of 66