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

]]>I agree with Dmitri.

I doubt that applied category theorists (for example) would all consider themselves doing 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”.

]]>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**”

Added Awodey to JSL editors

Jonas Frey

]]>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.

]]>Updated the published for Higher Structures.

]]>Added Journal of Topology.

]]>Deleted a note about topic subdivision that is no longer relevant.

]]>Oh, cool. Nice to see you on the editorial board, Nora!

]]>Added the Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society

Nora Ganter

]]>Substantive remarks are the best, of course.

]]>Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

]]>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”?

]]>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.

]]>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.

]]>Re #34: Who was the editor responsible for your MPCPS article?

]]>I knew this sounded familiar – we discussed MPCPS last year here.

]]>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.

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.)

]]>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)

]]>OK, I should clear it and add a link to the nLab page

]]>