The updated ESF/ERIH journal rankings are now available (thanks to Thomas Sturm for pointer). I haven't had time to study these in depth. Leaving aside the use to which these rankings are put, and some obvious tacit biases in the rankings, there are at least five obvious problems: 1. There are, as Fred Muller has pointed out, discrepancies between the philosophy and philosophy of science lists. (Try Erkenntnis, for example.) 2. Idiosyncracy: if you work on Kant and Leibniz your favorite journal is A listed; but if you work on Hume, it's not (obviously Kant scholarship is much better than Hume scholarship!). 3. The criteria used are completely non-transparent (and not obviously objective). 4. Despite past protest, the panelists are, as Steven French has emphasized, few, chosen without consultation, and not obviously representative. (Also, for some reason some well connected philosophers get invited back to the panels, but others not.) 5. Interdisciplinary work is, as Loet Leydesdorff has researched, discouraged. There are deeper problems with these rankings and the uses they are put to (although there also advantages), but let me hold my fire for now. I'll open comments for discusson. I hope the discussion can shed some light on the rankings.
Recent Comments