Skip to main content.
July 11th, 2013

How often do journals cite other journals?

I’ve been playing around with the data about citation patterns in top journals of recent articles, and I started to think that a lot of it was very noisy. So I was looking for ways to aggregate the data that would be revealing. I decided to look at how many times recent articles, that is articles from 2000 onwards, from different journals were cited in each of the ‘top 3’ philosophy journals – Journal of Philosophy, Mind and Philosophical Review. A few disclaimers before I start.

That said, here are the data. I’ll leave commentary on the data for another time, because they are interesting enough on their own. I would be very interested in hearing in the comments for suggestions for other journals that might suitably be analysed this way.

Citing Journal
Source Journal of Philosophy      Mind      Philosophical Review
Journal of Philosophy 74 33 26
Mind 19 177 24
Philosophical Review 24 32 48
Philosophical Studies 57 56 35
Philosophical Quarterly 14 32 11
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 16 20 15
Ethics 15 16 12
Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 3 3
Philosophy of Science 21 8 10
BJPS 14 14 8
Linguistics and Philosophy 6 13 13
Mind and Language 12 15 5
Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 16 2
Journal of Symbolic Logic 1 3 1
Hypatia 0 0 1
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 1 2 2
Law and Philosophy 1 0 0
Legal Theory 1 1 0

UPDATE 7/12: I’ve added some more thoughts in a new post.

Posted by Brian Weatherson in Uncategorized


This entry was posted on Thursday, July 11th, 2013 at 11:35 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

5 Responses to “How often do journals cite other journals?”

  1. eschwitz says:

    Very interesting, Brian! Two things that stand out to me: the huge same-journal citation advantage and the huge dropoff — including the complete non-representation of many journals. Did you see my post on citations of leading analytic vs. Continental authors at the big three journals (“The Ghettoization of Nietzsche” at the Splintered Mind)? A similar lesson in in-group thinking by the big three journals, in my mind.

  2. Brian Weatherson says:

    Yep, that was a great post. And the drop-off when you get to the five journals at the bottom of the list is crazy; these are fundamental areas of philosophy just getting left off the agenda. Some of that is self-selection by authors, but surely not all of it.

    The self-citation thing is true across all journals. If I’d run the grid out to 18*18 rather than 18*3, you’d see the central diagonal bulging compared to all of the rest. The self-citation rate in the Review is actually surprisingly low. It’s in part because there’s no such thing as a general philosophy journal, and in part because some journals (especially Mind) love discussions. But that’s hardly a full explanation.

  3. says:

    Brian, are these numbers for the total number of self-citations, period, or for the number of articles self-cited? If the former, then I wonder how much the data are influenced by particular articles that happen to have generated a great deal of discussion in the journals where they were published.

  4. says:

    My original response was to be totally unsurprised by the self-citation bulge, but then I looked at your numbers a little more. According to the data, only 74 out of 489 articles in the Journal of Philosophy cite other articles from that journal. That number seems low given that book reviews are not included.

    I was also wondering why you chose to include some of the specialist journals at the end instead of some bigger name (but not “top three”) generalist journals (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research comes to mind)?

  5. Brian Weatherson says:

    Neither John – the number in each cell is the number of articles in the journal of that column, which cite at least one article by the journal of that row.

    So like Corey, I’m not too surprised by the self-citation bulge. It is (as John says) a combination of articles that generate a lot of discussion in that journal, plus the large number of discussion sections in Mind, which will of course cite other articles in Mind.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.