Suchergebnisse

I've received many requests for some kind of journal rankings list from readers.

Readers will be aware of several different rankings of philosophy journals. These include the Australian Research Council's (ARC) now disused ERA rankings and European Science Foundation's (ESF) European Research Index for the Humanities (ERIH).  Plus, there have been different polls by Brian Leiter and the Brooks Blog (and this more comprehensive poll of 140+ journals). Other blogs discussing journal rankings include Certain Doubts, Lemmings, Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants, and this.

Each metric has its limitations and such a discussion would merit a long blogpost of its own. Let me be clear from the beginning that I believe that journal rankings are the crudest of indicators. If you want to assess the quality of something, then read it.

What I propose here is a ranking of rankings. Journals will be grouped in tiers based upon various metrics. There is broad agreement between different lists and I don't believe this list will prove controversial. The journals that score best are those journals that have consistently ranked highly across the major studies both European (ERIH), International (ARC ERA), and major opinion polls of thousands of philosophers (Brooks Blog, Leiter Reports). We find wide consistency across most indicators, but taken together we can find a strong "core" that come out top again and again. Those that perform less well is often a result of inclusion on some indicators, but not others. Comments are most welcome and the list (with information on how data was collected) is below. Enjoy!
Some proposed journal rankings for philosophy *

Rated 'A*' (maximum 25 points):
Ethics
Journal of Philosophy
Mind
Nous
Philosophical Review
Philosophical Quarterly
Philosophical Studies
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

Rated 'A' (20-24 points):

Analysis (24)
Australasian Journal of Philosophy (24)
Philosophy and Public Affairs (24)
Canadian Journal of Philosophy (23)
American Philosophical Quarterly (22)
Monist (22)

Rated 'B' (15-19):

European Journal of Philosophy (19)
Synthese (19)
Journal of the History of Philosophy (18)
Philosophers' Imprint (18)
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (18)
Ratio (18)
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (17)
Journal of Political Philosophy (17)
Midwest Studies in Philosophy (17)
Philosophy of Science (17)
Journal of Ethics (16)
Journal of Moral Philosophy (16)
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (16)
Philosophical Topics (16)
Utilitas (16)
Journal of Philosophical Logic (15)

Rated 'C' (10-14 points):

British Journal for the History of Philosophy (14)
Erkenntnis (14)
Mind and Language (14)
Kant-Studien (13)
Philosophy (13)
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (12)
Philosophical Papers (12)
Phronesis (12)
Southern Journal of Philosophy (12)
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (11)
Review of Metaphysics (11)
Hume Studies (10)
Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (10)
Journal of Philosophical Research (10)

N/a ranked (9 or less points):

Metaphilosophy (9)
Philosophical Investigations (9)
History of Philosophy Quarterly (8)
International Journal of Philosophical Studies (8)
Philosophy Compass (7)
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (5)
Philosophia (4)


* Note on rankings:

I have weighted the journals in the following way:

ARC ERA list:
Journals are ranked A*, A, B, C. Points awarded: A* = 5, A = 4, B = 3, C = 2.

Brooks Blog list (1):
Journals ranked 1-50. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3, #31-40 = 2, #41-50 = 1.

List (2) ranks journals 1-50. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3, #31-40 = 2, #41-50 = 1, #51-143 = 0.

ERIH list:
Journals are (now) ranked Int1, Int2, Nat. Points awarded: Int1 = 5, Int2 = 4, Nat = 3.

Leiter Reports list:
General philosophy journals ranked only in top 20. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4. Leiter has an additional list in ethics which raises complications. Journals are not double-counted and keep score if on general list. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3 where journals not on list 1. While this will cover general journals and journals that publish in ethics, there is need for a list in other areas especially mind/language and philosophy of science.

Notes: There are two lists for the Brooks Blog. List 2 is original list and surveys top 143 journals from a broad range. The top 50 in this poll were polled a second time in List 1.

QUERY FOR READERS: Do the weightings seem appropriate? What would you change? What journal rankings would you add?

UPDATE: Do readers believe the rankings are an accurate reflection of the field? Any surprises? 

I've received many requests for some kind of journal rankings list from readers of my essay on publishing advice.

Readers will be aware of several different rankings of philosophy journals. These include the Australian Research Council's (ARC) now disused ERA rankings and European Science Foundation's (ESF) European Research Index for the Humanities (ERIH).

Plus, there have been different polls by Brian Leiter and the Brooks Blog (and this more comprehensive poll of 140+ journals). Other blogs discussing journal rankings include Certain Doubts, Lemmings, Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants, and this.

Each metric has its limitations and such a discussion would merit a long blogpost of its own. Let me be clear from the beginning that I believe that journal rankings are the crudest of indicators. If you want to assess the quality of something, then read it.

What I propose here is a ranking of rankings. Journals will be grouped in tiers based upon various metrics. There is broad agreement between different lists and I don't believe this list will prove controversial.

The official Brooks Blog Journal Rankings for Philosophy *

[The full rankings can be found here  http://tinyurl.com/philosophyrankings]!]


* Note on rankings:

I have weighted the journals in the following way:

ARC ERA list:
Journals are ranked A*, A, B, C. Points awarded: A* = 5, A = 4, B = 3, C = 2.

Brooks Blog list (1):
Journals ranked 1-50. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3, #31-40 = 2, #41-50 = 1.

List (2) ranks journals 1-50. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3, #31-40 = 2, #41-50 = 1, #51-143 = 0.

ERIH list:
Journals are (now) ranked Int1, Int2, Nat. Points awarded: Int1 = 5, Int2 = 4, Nat = 3.

Leiter Reports list:
General philosophy journals ranked only in top 20. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4. Leiter has an additional list in ethics which raises complications. Journals are not double-counted and keep score if on general list. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3 where journals not on list 1. While this will cover general journals and journals that publish in ethics, there is need for a list in other areas especially mind/language and philosophy of science.

Notes: There are two lists for the Brooks Blog. List 2 is original list and surveys top 143 journals from a broad range. The top 50 in this poll were polled a second time in List 1.

QUERY FOR READERS: Do the weightings seem appropriate? What would you change? What journal rankings would you add?

The author considers Jurgen Habermas's conceptualization of & concern about the "pressure of the street." In the realm of the street, force or violence often overwhelm reason. In Habermas's theory, both civil society & the state hover precariously above an abyss symbolized by the street. 22 References. A. Funderburg

The author considers Jurgen Habermas's conceptualization of & concern about the "pressure of the street." In the realm of the street, force or violence often overwhelm reason. In Habermas's theory, both civil society & the state hover precariously above an abyss symbolized by the street. 22 References. A. Funderburg

Traces legal scholar Ronald Dworkin's developing work in legal & political philosophy; describes both his constructive theory of law & his understanding of liberal equality; & summarizes his argument about the ethical foundations of liberalism. Dworkin views law as an interpretive concept & general theories of law as constructive interpretations. His definition of liberal equality links equality, liberty, & community into a general political ideal that emphasizes the need for compensatory strategies to reduce inequalities. Other issues discussed include Dworkin's recent defenses of the foundations of liberalism; distinctions he draws between volitional & critical interests; & dilemmas associated with critical interests. A look at differences between the impact model & the challenge model of value notes that Dworkin believes the ethical roots of political liberalism are found in the challenge model of ethics. Dworkin's most recent work is summarized to conclude that his legal theory needs further philosophical development, especially in regard to his argument about the superiority of the challenge model. J. Lindroth

Contributor(s): Dr Jonathan Birch, Professor Kristin Andrews, Dr Rosalind Arden | Since this episode was recorded the UK Animal Welfare Act 2022 has become law. This extends animal welfare protections to animals such as octopuses, lobsters and crabs - a direct result of the findings of LSE academic Dr Jonathan Birch – featured in this episode - that animals are sentient. They have the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm.For this episode, James Rattee travels to the local park to find out how smart dogs are, he'll hear about a campaign arguing that chimpanzees are animals deserving of their own rights and, finally, he'll ask whether insects and other invertebrates have feelings.
The episode features Jonathan Birch, Associate Professor in LSE's Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, Professor Kristin Andrews, the York Research Chair in Animal Minds at York University (Toronto) and Dr Rosalind Arden, Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science.
Research Foundations of Animal Sentience Project Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief, Kristin Andrews, Gary L Comstock, Crozier G.K.D., Sue Donaldson, Andrew Fenton, Tyler M John, L. Syd M Johnson, Robert C Jones, Will Kymlicka, Letitia Meynell, Nathan Nobis, David Pena-Guzman and Jeff Sebo. A general intelligence factor in dogs, Rosalind Arden, Mark James Adams, Intelligence Volume 55, March–April 2016, Pages 79-85

Examines the philosophical arguments made in Karl Marx's dissertation, a work dedicated to moving beyond Hegelian philosophy by determining the conditions in which an abstract generality becomes a concrete objectivity. This subject is pursued in the context of a demonstration that a basic philosophical difference exists between the philosophies of Democritus & Epicurus, in that Epicurus distinguishes between the atom as principle & structural element, while Democritus remains aware only of the latter. While Marx ultimately failed to find an answer to his general question, it is suggested that the exercise produced an invaluable, basic Marxist insight: the epistemological foundations of science cannot be established on the basis of a form of individual reductionism; rather, science can be constructed only on the basis of a notion of the collective individual. 15 References. D. Ryfe

Explores the theoretical orientation of judge & author Richard Posner who describes his general philosophy as "pragmatism." Posner applies an empirically & economically oriented social science approach to issues of law & justice. A socially liberal but economically conservative libertarian, Posner claims the legal formalism & "academic moralism" of political philosophers like John Rawls & Ronald Dworkin fails to pay enough attention to facts or consequences. He argues that debates about such contentious issues as affirmative action are "unproductive when they concern the moral requirements of an abstract ideal like racial equality." Posner's views on questions of sexual morality & public policy utilize an "economic" analysis that supports a diminished role for government. It is contended that Posner is best described as a "quasi-rule pragmatist" in regard to the role of the judiciary because he rejects both "act pragmatism" & "pure judicial formalism" in favor of a narrower kind of pragmatism that limits judges' freedom to ignore traditional sources of law. Similarities are pointed out between Posner's theorizing & the theories he critiques. J. Lindroth

In den aktuellen Kulturkämpfen kritisieren Konservative Identitätspolitik und "Cancel Culture" als Einschränkungen von individueller Freiheit. Der Artikel untersucht die dabei zugrundeliegenden Freiheitsbegriffe. Die konservative Kritik stützt sich in der Regel auf einen negativen Begriff von Freiheit als Nichteinmischung im Sinne der liberalen Tradition. In der politischen Theorie wird ein solcher negativer Freiheitsbegriff als Gegensatz zur Auffassung von sozialer Freiheit gesehen, die Freiheit in hegelianischer und kommunitaristischer Tradition als ein gemeinschaftliches Unternehmen begreift. Der Artikel zeigt, dass beide Konzepte - trotz ihrer philosophischen Gegensätze - in der zeitgenössischen konservativen Kritik an Identitätspolitik übereinstimmen und daher politisch kompatibel sind. Beide Freiheitsbegriffe kranken an einem falschen Universalismus. Im Gegensatz dazu hilft die radikaldemokratische Tradition, Freiheit partikularistisch zu verstehen. Dabei wird verständlich, dass Identitätspolitik nicht in erster Linie eine Einschränkung individueller Freiheit ist, sondern als Demokratisierung der Demokratie ein Beitrag zur Freiheit aller ist.