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.

]]>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.

]]>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.

But I think the list doesn't have to be perfect, it's already a great help to people as it is. ]]>

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.

]]>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.

]]>Moved “Annals of Pure and Applied Logic” to section “Journals previously publishing homotopy theory and/or category theory”

Jonas Frey

]]>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

]]>Noted that Cahiers also specialises in categories.

]]>Added Documenta Mathematica.

]]>Added IMRN.

]]>Added Transactions of the AMS.

]]>Relocated Fundamenta to a more appropriate position.

]]>Just to highlight that, again, this new item probably deserves to be moved away from the top position in that list.

]]>Fundamenta Mathematicae added ; note that the online first version is free

Philippe Gaucher

]]>Moved Extracta further down the list.

]]>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.

]]>Thanks. I see. So I have moved that comment to right before the list, where one can spot it (here)

]]>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.

]]>Is there a hidden ordering to the list?

]]>Extracta Mathematicae added

Philippe Gaucher

]]>Separate into “currently publishing” and “previously publishing”.

]]>Add Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences.

]]>renamed page to “list of journals publishing homotopy theory and category theory”

Anonymous

]]>