Citation Graphs, One Journal at a Time

The big graphs I posted earlier have so much information, that much of it gets lost in the mess of lines. So I’ve broken down the data to create a graph just involving each journal’s interactions with the other 31. Here are the graphs. (As always, click on each for a larger image.)

British Journal of Aesthetics Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
Journal of the History of Philosophy Phronesis
Kant Studien Journal of Political Philosophy
Philosophy and Public Affairs Ethics
Biology and Philosophy Synthese
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Science
Economics and Philosophy Review of Metaphysics
Journal of Philosophical Logic Review of Symbolic Logic
Mind and Language Linguistics and Philosophy
Episteme Philosophical Studies
Mind Philosophical Quarterly
Analysis Australasian Journal of Philosophy
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Noûs
Philosophical Review Journal of Philosophy
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly Southern Journal of Philosophy
American Philosophical Quarterly Canadian Journal of Philosophy

I don’t have a lot of commentary on these beyond what I’ve said already, but here are a few quick thoughts about them.

  • When comparing different graphs, look at the scale before making judgments. The numbers are really different across journals.
  • CJP is more balanced than other journals, especially on moral/political and history. The red bar near the start of the outer ring is a sign of how much it interacts with Ethics.
  • Philosophical Studies is a huge part of the ecosystem. Partially that’s because of its size, but not entirely.
  • By the citation numbers, Review of Metaphysics is basically a history journal at this stage, and Economics and Philosophy is, insofar as it is a philosophy journal, a moral/political journal.
  • Mind has slightly more interactions with the logic journals than the other generalist journals do, but it isn’t dramatic.
  • Looking at the history journals makes Philosophical Review’s interactions with them more prominent than it is on the larger graph.
  • The difference between how much Episteme cites the American generalist journals and how much it cites the Commonwealth journals is fascinating. I don’t know how much this is the (quite normal) bias journals have towards journals that are geographically near them, and how much it reflects a different attitude towards epistemology in the US vs Commonwealth journals.
  • The citations to Analysis are much more balanced across the generalist journals than I expected; I thought journals would differ in how much they wanted to engage with Analysis articles.