Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Just to keep it simple: What rankings of mathematical conferences and journals are available in the internet? (I'm only interested in rankings, not about any discussion about rankings.)

share|improve this question
2  
MathSciNet's MCQ is a numerical value like impact factor for journals covered by Mathematical Reviews. –  Name Jul 10 '13 at 10:15
3  
@Frank This is not an unanimous view but, for many people here (myself included) MO is for mathematics only, not for all things of interest to research mathematicians. I hope it is clear to you that your question is not mathematics. –  Felipe Voloch Jul 11 '13 at 13:26
4  
@BenjaminSteinberg: Ben: Actually, most of the sources which google finds are not very useful (for unrelated reason, yesterday I spent 2 hours trying). 1. wiki page lists top 10 only. 2. IMU working group/blog- nothing of value. 3. ARC is again not very useful and, now, dated. The best sources I found are behind the paywall: a) MathSciNet: Top 100 by IF. b) Univ of California library's subscription for ICR: Pretty much everything. (Subject to the usual caveat that IF in many cases produces crappy answers, especially for applied math journals.) –  Misha Jul 12 '13 at 22:15
3  
Ok I voted to reopen since there is enough demand. –  Benjamin Steinberg Jul 13 '13 at 1:01
10  
How does one rank mathematical conferences? "Banach Algebras, 2009: 10/10 for vodka, 3/10 for fruit..." –  Yemon Choi Jul 13 '13 at 1:59

4 Answers 4

The Australian Mathematical Society have produced a ranking:

http://www.austms.org.au/Rankings/0101_AustMS_final_ranked.html

It is widely used (for instance, by my own institution in the UK).

When choosing where to submit I also make use of the following ranking of journal prices/ value:

http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~rehmann/BIB/AMS/Price_per_Volume.html

Of course it's a different type of ranking, but you might argue that it's a lot less subjective!

share|improve this answer
4  
I should point out that the Australian ranking linked above is produced by the ARC (our analogue of the NSF, say), not the Australian Maths Society. It's unfortunate it's still being used, because it's already obsolete. There were sufficiently many complaints about the process the went into constructing it that it isn't going to be repeated, but now that list is simply being used as is, with all its bad decisions and omissions. (It's the nature of the game...) –  Scott Morrison Jul 10 '13 at 13:17
5  
The ARC contracted the AustMS to produce the rankings for mathematics journals then adopted it with a few changes/errors. What appears on the AustMS page is the AustMS version, including some additions that were made in preparation for an extra ARC round that never happened. Incidentally, in the URL given, as well as 0101 use 0102 through 0105. –  Brendan McKay Jul 11 '13 at 13:42
1  
@Brendan-McKay According to theconversation.com/… since 2011, the Australian government has abandoned this system of ranking journals. –  Name Jul 13 '13 at 10:00
    
Thanks for the correction, @BrendanMcKay. –  Scott Morrison Jul 13 '13 at 23:32

I myself am not very fun of rankings. But when the Library of my University decided to cut down some of the journal subscriptions (due to the budget crisis in the Eurozone), I gave my personal viewpoint by means of creating a unbiased ranking of Mathematical Journals.

Mainly what I wanted to measure was the impact of the Maths published by each Journal throughout its life on today's Math. I took the raw data from MathSciNet. The result can be consulted in the web page of the society journal of the Spanish Math Society (the "Gaceta de la Real Sociedad Matematica Española"):

http://gaceta.rsme.es/adicional.php?id=1215

and also in my personal web page:

http://personal.us.es/arias/V17N3_439.pdf

The paper, where I explain the procedure devised for creating the ranking my procedure, is in Spanish, but at the end you can find the ranking, which is easily understood.

My ranking treats on the same footing all journals in applied, pure and statistical math.

share|improve this answer
1  
A useful addition to this, if you do a second one, is mark which journals are free to read or open access, with a disambiguation between those OA journals that one needs to pay to publish (e.g. Research in the Mathematical Sciences) and those that cost nothing to publish in (e.g. Theory and Applications of Categories, New York Journal of Mathematics). Also helpful would be flags on journals that are no longer around, such as Topology, Journal of K-theory. Would you consider making this table available in a more adaptable format, with a brief description of the derivation in English? –  David Roberts May 7 at 23:21
    
@DavidRoberts Journals that are no longer around continue to have impact on today's Math. So their inclusion is obligatory. A Library should assure the access of these deceased journals. –  juan May 9 at 7:52
1  
Sure, I do agree on that. Knowing that they are discontinued at a glance may save some time and effort on the part of someone trying to look for the journal for other reasons. And note my other point: having this in spreadsheet form would be more useful than merely a table in a pdf. –  David Roberts May 11 at 23:55

You can also check out http://zbmath.org/journals/ for details on the journal content. It doesn't give you a ranking though but you see at a glance, who published in the journal you are interested in or what topics are represented in the articles.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.