I’ve gathered information on a new page, linked to in the right side bar, titled Decade and Longitudinal Journal Information. It updates and improves the citation-based information contained in the page published earlier titled Philosophy Journal Information: ESF Rankings, Citation Impact, & Rejection Rates.
The new citation-based information is in 4 columns, the first two using citations in Google Scholar from 2000 to 2010 (data gathered May 25-7, 2010). The second two columns have no date restrictions.
One interesting thing to note is when the disparity between longitudinal numbers and decade numbers is unusually large or unusually small. For relatively new journals, an unusually small disparity is expected, but for mature journals, it is interesting to note which journals are on the decline and which on the rise. For such purposes, percentages are needed:
mean percentage of decade vs. longitudinal h-values: .48
mean percentage of decade vs. longitudinal g-values: .41
mean percentage of decade vs. longitudinal h-values for type 1 journals: .45
mean percentage of decade vs. longitudinal h-values for type 2 journals: .54
mean percentage of decade vs. longitudinal h-values for type 3 journals: .41
With just a brief look, I notice these above the .7 level and below the .3 level:
ON THE DECLINE: Review of Metaphysics, Journal of the History of Ideas, Kant-Studien, Phronesis, Ancient Philosophy, Mind, Journal of Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Southern Journal of Philosophy.
ON THE RISE: Mind and Language, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Religious Studies, Kantian Review, Biology and Philosophy, Economics and Philosophy, Social Philosophy and Policy, Philosophy and Literature, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Philosophy.
Of these, perhaps the most telling is that the journals that have received the most complaints in online sites about management and refereeing practices are in the “decline” group. Not surprising but still noteworthy.