25
$\begingroup$

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.)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
13
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – Felipe Voloch
    Commented Jul 11, 2013 at 13:26
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I voted to close because one can simply google these things and there is even a wikipage about this kind of thing. I don't see what can be added by the community other than linking to what google already has. Your question on Godel, on the other hand, is a great fit. $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Commented Jul 11, 2013 at 15:17
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @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.) $\endgroup$
    – Misha
    Commented Jul 12, 2013 at 22:15
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Ok I voted to reopen since there is enough demand. $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Commented Jul 13, 2013 at 1:01
  • 29
    $\begingroup$ How does one rank mathematical conferences? "Banach Algebras, 2009: 10/10 for vodka, 3/10 for fruit..." $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Jul 13, 2013 at 1:59

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

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!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ 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...) $\endgroup$
    – Kim Morrison
    Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 13:17
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Brendan McKay
    Commented Jul 11, 2013 at 13:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Brendan-McKay According to theconversation.com/… since 2011, the Australian government has abandoned this system of ranking journals. $\endgroup$
    – Name
    Commented Jul 13, 2013 at 10:00
10
$\begingroup$

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.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts ♦
    Commented May 7, 2015 at 23:21
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – juan
    Commented May 9, 2015 at 7:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts ♦
    Commented May 11, 2015 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ It is not a priori clear to me that it's a good idea to put applied, pure, and statistical maths journals on the same footing, as these areas could potentially have vastly different publication practices (the same can be said for individual subjects within each category, of course). But maybe you already address this in your methodology. $\endgroup$
    – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
    Commented Aug 14, 2020 at 18:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, I'm not sure I understand your usage of the word 'unbiased'. I understand that this means at least that you do not take 'prestige' or other subjective qualities into account (although there could be reasons to do so), but using a renormalised impact factor as the only basis will favour certain types of papers. For example, long foundational papers may get more citations than papers that settle well-known 'terminal' problems. From what I can tell, you do a pretty good job of justifying your procedure, but what I couldn't find is an analysis of its shortcomings. $\endgroup$
    – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
    Commented Aug 14, 2020 at 18:56
9
$\begingroup$

There is the Report of the IMU/ICIAM Working Group on Journal Ranking (June 2011), and the IMU blog on mathematical journals, discussing exactly these questions, and giving lists of such rankings.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Here are the rankings of (not just math) journals employed by some countries:

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

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.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$