Scimago vs Devitt's LGSCD ranking for Top Philosophy Journals

Here I add the Scimago Quartile rankings to the Devitt's LGSCD journal rankings for 2011-2015 within the discipline of 'philosophy'. For more information about Quartile rankings see here.

I have chosen both the mode and recency to pick the value, e.g. if a journal is Q1 for 3-5 years 2011-2015 then I rank it Q1, so long as it has ranked Q1 in 2015. The reason for this method is to assist Academics who are being evaluated in 2016 for the quality of their publications. I assume that Quartile ranking for the most recent year (i.e. 2015) is more relevant than the ranking of previous years if there is variance.


  1. Noûs 14 points [GS = 4, L = 3, CD = 7] [Q1]

  2. Ethics 16 points [GS = 10**, L = 6, CD = 4] [Q1]

  3. Mind 18 points [GS = 8*, L = 4, CD = 6] [Q1]

  4. Journal of Philosophy 20 points [GS = 13**, L = 2, CD = 5] [Q1]

  5. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 23 points [GS = 5, L = 5, CD = 13] [Q1]

  6. The Philosophical Review 25 points [GS = 21**, L = 1, CD = 3] [Q1]

  7. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28 points [GS = 7*, L = 14, CD = 7] [Q1]

  8. Mind & Language 30 points [GS = 3, L = 22, CD = 4.9] [Q1]

  9. Philosophy of Science 33 points [GS = 6*, L = 13, CD = 14] [Q1]

  10. Erkenntnis 35 points [GS = 9**, L = 17, CD = 9] [Q1]

  11. Philosophical Studies 37 points [GS = 2, L = 7, CD = 28] [Q1]

  12. The Philosophical Quarterly 38 points [GS = 19**, L = 11, CD = 8] [No record]

  13. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 41 points [GS = 25***, L = 8, CD = 8] [Q1]

  14. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42.7 [GS = 19***, L = 19, CD = 4.7] [Q2] [4/5 yrs Q2, 2014 Q1]

  15. Analysis 42.8 points [GS = 22**, L = 10, CD = 10.8] [Q1]

  16. Synthese 43.1 points [GS = 1, L = 11, CD = 31.1] [Q1]

  17. Journal of Philosophical Logic 45 points [GS = 18, L = 21, CD = 6] [Q1]

  18. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 53.2 points [ GS = 33, L = 16, CD = 4.2] [No record]

  19. Biology & Philosophy 53.5 points [GS = 16*, L = 29, CD = 9.5] [Q1]

  20. European Journal of Philosophy 57 points [GS = 29***, L = 24, CD = 5] [Q1] [4/5 yrs Q1, 2012 Q2]

  21. Journal of Political Philosophy 59.7 points [GS = 17*, L = 38, CD = 4.7] [Q1]

  22. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 60.7 points [GS = 31***, L = 23, CD = 5.7] [Q1]

  23. American Philosophy Quarterly 61 points [GS = 37*** , L = 18, CD = 6] [No record]

  24. The Monist 62 points [GS = 30, L = 26, CD = 6] [inconsistent entry]

  25. Journal of the History of Philosophy 63 points [GS = 40, L = 20, CD = 3] [Q2] [4/5 yrs Q2, 2015 Q1]

  26. Economics and Philosophy 64 points [GS = 26***, L = 35, CD = 3] [Q1]

  27. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 71 points [GS = 28, L = 37, CD = 6] [Q2] [3/5 yrs Q2, 2/5 yrs Q3]

  28. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 72 points [GS = 40, L = 25, CD = 7] [Q2] [5/5 yrs Q2]

  29. Inquiry 73 points [GS = 27, L = 40, CD = 6] [inconsistent entry]

  30. Ratio 78 points [GS = 34, L = 39, CD = 5] [Q1] [4/5 yrs Q1, 2011 Q3]

  31. Utilitas 81.8 points [GS = 35, L = 43, CD = 3.8] [Q1] [3/5 yrs Q1, 2011-2012 Q2]

  32. Social Philosophy and Policy 81.9 points [GS = 32, L = 45, CD = 4.9] [Q2] [3/5 yrs Q2, 2012 + 2015 Q1]

  33. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 84 points [GS = 41, L = 41, CD = 2] [Q2]

  34. Continental Philosophy Review 88 points [GS = 38, L = 46, CD = 4] [Q2] [3yrs Q2, 2012 + 2014 Q3]

  35. Review of Metaphysics 90 points [GS = 42, L = 44, CD = 4] [Q3] [3yrs Q3, 2012 + 2013 Q2]


Journals not indexed by Google metrics:
Philosophy and Public Affairs [Q1]
Philosopher's Imprint [Q1]
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy [No record]
Philosophical Perspectives [undefined] [no score 2013-2014, 2015 Q3]
Linguistics & Philosophy [Q1]
Midwest Studies in Philosophy [Q3] [2/5 Q3, 2011 Q1, 2012 Q2, 2014 Q4]
Oxford Studies in Metaethics [No record]
Oxford Studies in Epistemology [No record]
History of Philosophy Quarterly [Q2] [3/4 Q2, 2015 Q3, 2011 no score]
Philosophical Topics [Q4] [2/4 Q4, 2015 Q2, 2014 Q3]

Journals ranked in the top 20 of Google Scholar that did not rank in Leiter.
11 Journal of Consciousness Studies [Q2] [3/5 Q1, 2013 + 2015 Q2]
12 Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences [Q1]
14 Review of Philosophy and Psychology [Q1]
15 Philosophical Psychology [Q1]
20 Metaphilosophy [Q1] [4/5 Q1, 2011 Q2]
23 Studies in Philosophy and Education [Q2] [4/5 Q1, 2015 Q2]
24 Philosophy Compass [Q1] [2/3 Q1, 2013 Q2]

N.B. Rankings adjusted to incorporate highly rated philosophy of science and political philosophy journals (see '*' below)

--
* Because Google excluded several highly rated philosophy of science and political philosophy journals from their ranking list, I have altered my Google ranking to include these journals. To do this I searched the h5-index and h5-median for Philosophy of Science (PS) (h5-index = 22, h5-median = 27), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS) (h5-index = 21, h5-median = 27) and Biology & Philosophy (h5-index = 18, h5-median = 23) and derived their logical place as 6th, 7th and 16th respectively. Putting PS and BJPS below PPR (h5-index = 23, h5-median =30) above Mind (h5-index = 20, h5-median = 31) that then moves from 6th to 8th place. Biology & Philosophy ranks below Philosophical Psychology. Journal of Political Philosophy (h5-index = 17, h5-median = 49) ranked 17th under Philosophy of Biology. I ranked using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. There may be other ways non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings.

** These journals ranked 2-4 places further down due to the displacement caused by including the 4 philosophy of science or political philosophy journals discussed above (see '*'), e.g. Journal of Philosophy is ranked #11 in Google's list, but is ranked 13th here, Philosophy Review is ranked 17th in Google's list, but ranked 21st here].

*** Journals that did not rate highly enough to appear on Google Scholar's top 20 list, but were highly ranked on Leiter's measure, I searched for individually and then ranked them in order starting after Google's top 24 using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. N.B. There may be other non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings. Also, this method has no way of determining if other, non-Leiter identified philosophy journals are higher ranked via Google.

25 Australasian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index =15, h5-median = 21)
26 Economics and Philosophy (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19)
27 Inquiry (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19)
28 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 15)
29 European Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 17)
30 The Monist (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 15)
31 Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13)
32 Social Philosophy and Policy (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13)
33 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 16)
34 Ratio (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 11)
35 Utilitas (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 10)
36 Canadian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 14)
37 American Philosophy Quarterly (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 13)
38 Continental Philosophy Review (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 9)
39 Journal of the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 7, h5-median = 14)
40 British Journal for the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 5, h5-median = 6)
41 Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 12)
42 Review of Metaphysics (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 5)

N.B. Journals with the same h5-index and h5-median scores via Google Scholar I have ranked in their order of appearance in Leiter's rankings.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR
Dr Kate Devitt
Email: skdevitt@gmail.com
Twitter: @skdevitt
Website: http://skdevitt.com



web counter

Female Participation: Review of the AAP 2014

The last AAP I attended was in Melbourne in 2009. The first AAP i attended was in Auckland in 1997. So, what is Australasian philosophy like for women in 2014?

The AAP president is a woman, that helps. There seem to be lots of women about. The proportion of women seems to make men less surprised and fascinated by their presence. Men and women still crane their heads whenever a woman speaks to visually comprehend the outlier; but, it feels as though women are asking questions and giving talks a lot more than they used to.

The impact of female active participation should not be understated. The diversity of womens' behaviours, interests, physical attributes, age and capacity is marvellously freeing. A concentration of diverse women removes the stifling responsibility on a handful of philosophers to represent the vaunted 'other', the UR-female philosopher: The mythic aesthetically pleasing, intellectually electric, emotionally stable, humorous, laid back, fiesty, suitably demure, stylish, sexually available and interested--but not too much--insightful, and breathtaking analytic creature.

This is good news for the AAP and Australasian philosophy.

What to work on? I want to suggest only one challenge. I've noticed that almost all speakers, male and female, use female characters to illustrate their thought experiments--an unremarked feature of contemporary analytic philosophy. On the one hand, featuring female agents is tremendously inclusive and reiterates the normalcy of the rational female. On the other hand, the inclusion of these examples, without the inclusion of any female viewpoints (e.g. female philosophers' arguments or examples constructed by female philosophers) lowers the value of female characters considerably, to the level of ship's figurehead while the captains' plot their course.



The women in a philosophy paper's thought-experiment are fake-agents. Their agency is described, but they are constructed and constrained. So, my suggestion is quite simple, when writing philosophy papers, philosophers ought to do their best to find a female captain, not merely a ship's figurehead.



Here's how:

  1. Search your philosophy databases using keywords from your paper to check if any female authors are saying anything on the issue.

  2. Do a cited reference search for papers written by women that respond to a key paper you are discussing.

  3. Include women's philosophy proportionately in your papers and talks. Perhaps the woman has a point of only minor relevance to your argument, then do a 'shout-out' in-text, or in a footnote to acknowledge her voice. Perhaps you discover an argument that is particularly relevant and you discuss it in your research. Or, you may not find anything and you can defend the lack of female citations if asked. Finally, you might find an unrelated, but interesting argument by a female philosopher and you make note of it, add it to your bibliographic database (e.g. Endnote library), and make it available for some future research on the topic.

These steps ought to be common practise and normative guidelines for inclusion. There is no mandate for including women in one's research, only a mandate that a responsible philosopher follows a procedure of proactive attempts to include female authorship.

This procedure is necessary to re-write the default tendencies philosophers (both male and female) fall back on to cite their heroes, teachers, colleagues, peers, and friends to generate debates and justify their views. Nepotistic citing tendencies are heuristically built up from undergraduate and graduate syllabi, colloquium, conference presenters, and key authors in top journals. But, these heuristics must be rationally rewritten.

Luckily, as has been commented on, high quality arguments can be found in a wide-range of philosophy journals and the modern age means it is simple to search for alternate arguments from the literature.

Seeking new arguments can only be good for philosophy. Any increase in the representation of female authorship in philosophical discourse stemming from this improves the culture of philosophy and begins to correct ingrained and institutional biases against female representation.

DEVITT'S GSCD-INDEX Modified Google Scholar Metric Top Philosophy Journals

Since I published this metric (now blogged by Brian Leiter here), philosophers have requested a ranking based purely on the Google Scholar (GS) data modified by the citable documents (CD) score. I have obliged below including all top 20 ranked Google Scholar philosophy journals plus all journals ranked in Leiter's subjective ranking with the exception of those journals unranked by Google:****

  1. Mind & Language 7.9 points [GS = 3, CD = 4.9]

  2. Noûs 10.5 points [GS = 4, CD = 6.5]

  3. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13.5 points [GS = 7*, CD = 6.5]

  4. Mind 13.7 points [GS = 8*, CD = 5.7]

  5. Ethics 14.3 points [GS = 10**, CD = 4.3]

  6. Journal of Philosophy 17.9 points [GS = 13**, CD = 4.9]

  7. Erkenntnis 18.0 points [GS = 9**, CD = 9.0]

  8. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 18.0 points [GS =12**, CD = 6.0]

  9. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 18.5 points [GS = 5, CD = 13.5]

  10. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 18.6 points [GS = 14**, CD = 4.6]

  11. Philosophy of Science 20.3 points [GS = 6*, CD = 14.3]

  12. Journal of Political Philosophy 21.7 points [GS = 17*, CD = 4.7]

  13. Philosophical Psychology 23.0 points [GS = 15**, CD = 8.0]

  14. The Philosophical Review 23.6 points [GS = 21**, CD = 2.6]

  15. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23.8 points [GS = 18**, CD = 5.8]

  16. Journal of Consciousness Studies 24.0 points [GS = 11**, CD = 13.0]

  17. Biology & Philosophy 25.5 points [GS = 16*, CD = 9.5]

  18. The Philosophical Quarterly 26.6 points [GS = 19**, CD = 7.6]

  19. Metaphilosophy 27.6 [GS = 20**  CD = 7.6]

  20. Economics and Philosophy 29.8 points [GS = 27***, CD = 2.8]

  21. Hypatia 30.0 points [GS = 26***, CD = 4.0]

  22. Philosophical Studies 30.3 points [GS = 2, CD = 28.3]

  23. Studies in Philosophy and Education 30.7 [GS = 23**, CD = 7.7]

  24. Synthese 32.1 points [GS = 1, CD = 31.1]

  25. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 32.5 points [GS = 25***, CD = 7.5]

  26. Analysis 32.8 points[GS = 22**, CD = 10.8]

  27. Inquiry 34.5 points [GS = 28***, CD = 6.5]

  28. European Journal of Philosophy 35.1 points [GS = 30***, CD = 5.1]

  29. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35.3 points [GS = 29***, CD = 6.3]

  30. Dialectica 37.3 [GS = 32***, CD = 5.3]

  31. The Monist 37.4 points [GS = 31***, CD = 6.4]

  32. Social Philosophy and Policy 37.9 points [GS = 33***, CD = 4.9]

  33. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 39.2 points [ GS = 35***, CD = 4.2]

  34. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 39.7 points [GS = 34***, CD = 5.7]

  35. Philosophy Compass 40.9 points [GS = 24**, CD = 16.9]

  36. Ratio 41.5 points [GS = 36***, CD = 5.5]

  37. Utilitas 41.8 points [GS = 38***, CD = 3.8]

  38. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 43.4 [GS = 37***, CD = 6.4]

  39. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43.7 [GS = 39***, CD = 4.7]

  40. Continental Philosophy Review 45.5 points [GS = 41***, CD = 4.5]

  41. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45.5 points [GS = 42***, CD = 3.5]

  42. American Philosophy Quarterly 45.8 points [GS = 40*** , CD = 5.8]

  43. Phronesis 47.3 [GS = 45***, CD = 2.3]

  44. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 48.1 points [GS = 46***, CD = 2.1]

  45. Acta Analytica 48.6 [GS = 43***, CD = 5.6]

  46. Review of Metaphysics 51.1 points [GS = 47***, CD = 4.1]

  47. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 51.2 points [GS = 44***, CD = 7.2]

N.B. In the case of a tie, the Google Scholar ranking is prioritised.

To calculate CD I took the total number of citable documents 2010-2012, divided by 3, then divided this number by 5 to weight it against the Google Scholar data. For most journals I’ve taken this from SJR rankings. But, some philosophy journals are not ranked by SJR (e.g. Mind & Language, Philosophy & Biology, Journal of Political Philosophy and The Monist, Economics and Philosophy, the Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Philosophical Psychology, Studies in Philosophy and Education), so I have calculated these manually from the publisher’s website 2010-2012.

Journals not indexed by Google metrics:
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Philosopher's Imprint
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Philosophical Perspectives
Linguistics & Philosophy
Midwest Studies in Philosophy
Oxford Studies in Metaethics
Oxford Studies in Epistemology
History of Philosophy Quarterly
Philosophical Topics

--
* Because Google excluded several highly rated philosophy of science and political philosophy journals from their ranking list, I have altered my Google ranking to include these journals. To do this I searched the h5-index and h5-median for Philosophy of Science (PS) (h5-index = 22, h5-median = 27), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS) (h5-index = 21, h5-median = 27) and Biology & Philosophy (h5-index = 18, h5-median = 23) and derived their logical place as 6th, 7th and 16th respectively. Putting PS and BJPS below PPR (h5-index = 23, h5-median =30) above Mind (h5-index = 20, h5-median = 31) that then moves from 6th to 8th place. Biology & Philosophy ranks below Philosophical Psychology. Journal of Political Philosophy (h5-index = 17, h5-median = 49) ranked 17th under Philosophy of Biology. I ranked using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. There may be other ways non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings.

** These journals ranked 2-4 places further down due to the displacement caused by including the 4 philosophy of science or political philosophy journals discussed above (see '*'), e.g. Journal of Philosophy is ranked #11 in Google's list, but is ranked 13th here, The Philosophical Review is ranked 17th in Google's list, but ranked 21st here].

*** Journals that did not rate highly enough to appear on Google Scholar's top 20 list, but were highly ranked on Leiter's measure, I searched for individually and then ranked them in order starting after Google's top 24 using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. N.B. Journals with the same h5-index and h5-median scores via Google Scholar I have preferenced the journal with a smaller number of citable documents. N.B. There may be other non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings. Also, this method has no way of determining if other, non-Leiter identified philosophy journals are higher ranked via Google.

25 Australasian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index =15, h5-median = 21)
26 Hypatia**** (h5-index = 14, h5-median = 21, CD = 4.0)

27 Economics and Philosophy (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19, CD = 2.8)
28 Inquiry (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19, CD = 6.5)
29 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 15)
30 European Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 17)
31 The Monist (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 15)
32 Dialectica**** (h5-index = 10, h5-median 14, CD 5.3)

33 Social Philosophy and Policy (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13, CD = 4.9)
34 Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13, CD = 5.7)
35 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 16)
36 Ratio (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 11, CD = 5.5)
37 The Southern Journal of Philosophy**** (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 11, CD 6.4)
38 Utilitas (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 10)
39 Canadian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 14)
40 American Philosophy Quarterly (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 13)
41 Continental Philosophy Review (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 9)
42 Journal of the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 7, h5-median = 14)
43 Acta Analytica**** (h5-index = 7, h5-median 10, CD 5.6)

44 British Journal for the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 5, h5-median = 6)
45 Phronesis**** (h5-index = 5, h5-median = 6, CD = 2.3)

46 Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 12)
47 Review of Metaphysics (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 5)

**** UPDATE 10/07/14 Based on this post by Leiter regarding journals that he did not include in his original metric, I thought readers might be interested in how non-Leiter reviewed journals fared in this non-reputational metric.

NB I have only included journals that rank higher in Google Scholar than the lowest ranked Leiter rated journal (e.g.
The British Journal for the History of Philosophy). Readers are welcome to suggest other philosophy journals that Google Scholar ranks higher than The British Journal for the History of Philosophy for me to consider in this ranking, though I am reluctant to consider more than 50 journals in total.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR
Dr Kate Devitt
Email: skdevitt@gmail.com
Twitter: @skdevitt
Website: http://skdevitt.com

DEVITT'S LGSCD-INDEX Top Philosophy Journals (Leiter + Google Scholar + Citable Documents)

In this post I compare Google Scholar data and Brian Leiter's ranking of philosophy journals. Due to concerns regarding the disproportionate impact of different numbers of articles published by different journals to overall h-index (e.g. Phil Studies vs. Phil Review), I’ve added a third variable, Citable Documents (CD) to moderate this effect.

To calculate CD I’ve taken the total number of citable documents 2010-2012, divided by 3, then divided this number by 5 to weight it equally to the Leiter & Google data. For most journals I’ve taken this from SJR rankings. But, some philosophy journals are not ranked by SJR (e.g. Mind & Language, Philosophy & Biology, Journal of Political Philosophy and The Monist, Economics and Philosophy and the Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic), so I have calculated these manually from the publisher’s website 2010-2012. Where scores are tied I’ve included a ranking to one decimal place.

  1. Noûs 14 points [GS = 4, L = 3, CD = 7]

  2. Ethics 16 points [GS = 10**, L = 6, CD = 4]

  3. Mind 18 points [GS = 8*, L = 4, CD = 6]

  4. Journal of Philosophy 20 points [GS = 13**, L = 2, CD = 5]

  5. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 23 points [GS = 5, L = 5, CD = 13]

  6. The Philosophical Review 25 points [GS = 21**, L = 1, CD = 3]

  7. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28 points [GS = 7*, L = 14, CD = 7]

  8. Mind & Language 30 points [GS = 3, L = 22, CD = 4.9]

  9. Philosophy of Science 33 points [GS = 6*, L = 13, CD = 14]

  10. Erkenntnis 35 points [GS = 9**, L = 17, CD = 9]

  11. Philosophical Studies 37 points [GS = 2, L = 7, CD = 28]

  12. The Philosophical Quarterly 38 points [GS = 19**, L = 11, CD = 8]

  13. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 41 points [GS = 25***, L = 8, CD = 8]

  14. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42.7 [GS = 19***, L = 19, CD = 4.7]

  15. Analysis 42.8 points [GS = 22**, L = 10, CD = 10.8]

  16. Synthese 43.1 points [GS = 1, L = 11, CD = 31.1]

  17. Journal of Philosophical Logic 45 points [GS = 18, L = 21, CD = 6]

  18. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 53.2 points [ GS = 33, L = 16, CD = 4.2]

  19. Biology & Philosophy 53.5 points [GS = 16*, L = 29, CD = 9.5]

  20. European Journal of Philosophy 57 points [GS = 29***, L = 24, CD = 5]

  21. Journal of Political Philosophy 59.7 points [GS = 17*, L = 38, CD = 4.7]

  22. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 60.7 points [GS = 31***, L = 23, CD = 5.7]

  23. American Philosophy Quarterly 61 points [GS = 37*** , L = 18, CD = 6]

  24. The Monist 62 points [GS = 30, L = 26, CD = 6]

  25. Journal of the History of Philosophy 63 points [GS = 40, L = 20, CD = 3]

  26. Economics and Philosophy 64 points [GS = 26***, L = 35, CD = 3]

  27. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 71 points [GS = 28, L = 37, CD = 6]

  28. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 72 points [GS = 40, L = 25, CD = 7]

  29. Inquiry 73 points [GS = 27, L = 40, CD = 6]

  30. Ratio 78 points [GS = 34, L = 39, CD = 5]

  31. Utilitas 81.8 points [GS = 35, L = 43, CD = 3.8]

  32. Social Philosophy and Policy 81.9 points [GS = 32, L = 45, CD = 4.9]

  33. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 84 points [GS = 41, L = 41, CD = 2]

  34. Continental Philosophy Review 88 points [GS = 38, L = 46, CD = 4]

  35. Review of Metaphysics 90 points [GS = 42, L = 44, CD = 4]


Journals not indexed by Google metrics:
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Philosopher's Imprint
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Philosophical Perspectives
Linguistics & Philosophy
Midwest Studies in Philosophy
Oxford Studies in Metaethics
Oxford Studies in Epistemology
History of Philosophy Quarterly
Philosophical Topics

Journals ranked in the top 20 of Google Scholar that did not rank in Leiter.
11 Journal of Consciousness Studies
12 Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
14 Review of Philosophy and Psychology
15 Philosophical Psychology
20 Metaphilosophy
23 Studies in Philosophy and Education
24 Philosophy Compass

N.B. Rankings adjusted to incorporate highly rated philosophy of science and political philosophy journals (see '*' below)

--
* Because Google excluded several highly rated philosophy of science and political philosophy journals from their ranking list, I have altered my Google ranking to include these journals. To do this I searched the h5-index and h5-median for Philosophy of Science (PS) (h5-index = 22, h5-median = 27), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS) (h5-index = 21, h5-median = 27) and Biology & Philosophy (h5-index = 18, h5-median = 23) and derived their logical place as 6th, 7th and 16th respectively. Putting PS and BJPS below PPR (h5-index = 23, h5-median =30) above Mind (h5-index = 20, h5-median = 31) that then moves from 6th to 8th place. Biology & Philosophy ranks below Philosophical Psychology. Journal of Political Philosophy (h5-index = 17, h5-median = 49) ranked 17th under Philosophy of Biology. I ranked using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. There may be other ways non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings.

** These journals ranked 2-4 places further down due to the displacement caused by including the 4 philosophy of science or political philosophy journals discussed above (see '*'), e.g. Journal of Philosophy is ranked #11 in Google's list, but is ranked 13th here, Philosophy Review is ranked 17th in Google's list, but ranked 21st here].

*** Journals that did not rate highly enough to appear on Google Scholar's top 20 list, but were highly ranked on Leiter's measure, I searched for individually and then ranked them in order starting after Google's top 24 using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. N.B. There may be other non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings. Also, this method has no way of determining if other, non-Leiter identified philosophy journals are higher ranked via Google.

25 Australasian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index =15, h5-median = 21)
26 Economics and Philosophy (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19)
27 Inquiry (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19)
28 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 15)
29 European Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 17)
30 The Monist (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 15)
31 Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13)
32 Social Philosophy and Policy (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13)
33 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 16)
34 Ratio (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 11)
35 Utilitas (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 10)
36 Canadian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 14)
37 American Philosophy Quarterly (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 13)
38 Continental Philosophy Review (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 9)
39 Journal of the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 7, h5-median = 14)
40 British Journal for the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 5, h5-median = 6)
41 Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 12)
42 Review of Metaphysics (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 5)

N.B. Journals with the same h5-index and h5-median scores via Google Scholar I have ranked in their order of appearance in Leiter's rankings.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR
Dr Kate Devitt
Email: skdevitt@gmail.com
Twitter: @skdevitt
Website: http://skdevitt.com



web counter

DEVITT'S LGS-INDEX Top Philosophy Journals (Leiter + Google Scholar)

UPDATE: Please note that I have updated this metric to respond to feedback received from Brian Leiter and other philosophers. Please see Leiter's post and use my new metric here.

--
Below I compare Google Scholar's (GS) metrics to Leiter's (L) subjective report of quality on the top philosophy journals to capture not only the prestige of philosophy journals, but their impact by the degree of dialogue a publication generates (h-index).

The following journals rank the highest combining both measures:

  1. Noûs 7 points [GS = 4, L = 3]

  2. Philosophical Studies 9 points [GS = 2, L = 7]

  3. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 10 points [GS = 5, L = 5]

  4. Mind 12 points [GS = 8*, L = 4]

  5. Synthese 12 points [GS = 1, L = 11]

  6. Journal of Philosophy 15 points [GS = 13**, L = 2]

  7. Ethics 16 points [GS = 10**, L = 6]

  8. Philosophy of Science 19 points [GS = 6*, L = 13]

  9. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21 points [GS = 7*, L = 14]

  10. Philosophical Review 22 points [GS = 21**, L = 1]

  11. Mind & Language 25 points [GS = 3, L = 22]

  12. Erkenntnis 26 points [GS = 9**, L = 17]

  13. The Philosophical Quarterly 30 points [GS = 19**, L = 11]

  14. Analysis 32 points [GS = 22**, L = 10th]

  15. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 33 points [GS = 25***, L = 8]

  16. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 [GS = 19***, L = 19]

  17. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 points [GS = 18, L = 21]

  18. Biology & Philosophy 45 points [GS = 16*, L = 29]

  19. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 49 points [ GS = 33, L = 16]

  20. European Journal of Philosophy 53 points [GS = 29***, L = 24]

  21. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 54 points [GS = 31***, L = 23]

  22. Journal of Political Philosophy 55 points [GS = 17*, L = 38]

  23. American Philosophy Quarterly 55 points [GS = 37*** , L = 18]

  24. The Monist 56 points [GS = 30, L = 26]

  25. Journal of the History of Philosophy 60 points [GS = 40, L = 20]

  26. Economics and Philosophy 61 points [GS = 26***, L = 35]

  27. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 65 points [GS = 28, L = 37]

  28. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 65 points [GS = 40, L = 25]

  29. Inquiry 67 points [GS = 27, L = 40]

  30. Ratio 73 points [GS = 34, L = 39]

  31. Social Philosophy and Policy 77 points [GS = 32, L = 45]

  32. Utilitas 78 points [GS = 35, L = 43]

  33. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 82 points [GS = 41, L = 41]

  34. Continental Philosophy Review 84 points [GS = 38, L = 46]

  35. Review of Metaphysics 86 points [GS = 42, L = 44]

Philosophy Review, Mind & Language, Journal of Political Philosophy, American Philosophy Quarterly and The Journal of the History of Philosophy are most stark in contrast between subjective and objective rankings (i.e. differed by > 19 rankings), Where journals score the same score, I have picked the one that scored higher via Google Scholar ranking.

 It has been suggested that h-index is not a good measure for philosophy journals given the difference in output between them. E.g. The Philosophical Review publishes 12 articles per year, where as Noûs publishes three times the volume, 36 articles per year, giving it an advantage by volume for citations. While this is a valid point, the Google metrics (including h-index) is more subtle than than the pure volume of publications (as evidenced by the fact that The New England Journal of Medicine still trumps PLoS ONE ). It is conceivable that some high h-index philosophy journals also have very high quality editorial teams capable of evaluating a greater volume of articles per year with great rigour than other high quality journals. Shouldn't these efficient journals gain recognition for their capacity to produce volume at high quality? At least, answering this question is part of my motivation for investigating the issue. I have published two different metrics to respond to this criticism, the Devitt LGSCD-index (Leiter + Google Scholar modified by citable documents) and the Devitt GSCD-index (Google Scholar modified by citable documents)

Journals not indexed by Google metrics:
Philosopher's Imprint
Oxford Studies in Metaphysics
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Philosophical Perspectives
Linguistics & Philosophy
Midwest Studies in Philosophy
Oxford Studies in Metaethics
Oxford Studies in Epistemology
History of Philosophy Quarterly
Philosophical Topics

Journals ranked in the top 20 of Google Scholar that did not rank in Leiter.
11 Journal of Consciousness Studies
12 Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
14 Review of Philosophy and Psychology
15 Philosophical Psychology
20 Metaphilosophy
23 Studies in Philosophy and Education
24 Philosophy Compass

N.B. Rankings adjusted to incorporate highly rated philosophy of science and political philosophy journals (see '*' below)

--
* Because Google excluded several highly rated philosophy of science and political philosophy journals from their ranking list, I have altered my Google ranking to include these journals. To do this I searched the h5-index and h5-median for Philosophy of Science (PS) (h5-index = 22, h5-median = 27), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS) (h5-index = 21, h5-median = 27) and Biology & Philosophy (h5-index = 18, h5-median = 23) and derived their logical place as 6th, 7th and 16th respectively. Putting PS and BJPS below PPR (h5-index = 23, h5-median =30) above Mind (h5-index = 20, h5-median = 31) that then moves from 6th to 8th place. Biology & Philosophy ranks below Philosophical Psychology. Journal of Political Philosophy (h5-index = 17, h5-median = 49) ranked 17th under Philosophy of Biology. I ranked using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. There may be other ways non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings.

** These journals ranked 2-4 places further down due to the displacement caused by including the 4 philosophy of science or political philosophy journals discussed above (see '*'), e.g. Journal of Philosophy is ranked #11 in Google's list, but is ranked 13th here, Philosophy Review is ranked 17th in Google's list, but ranked 21st here].

*** Journals that did not rate highly enough to appear on Google Scholar's top 20 list, but were highly ranked on Leiter's measure, I searched for individually and then ranked them in order starting after Google's top 24 using h5-index first and only where scores are tied, used the h5-median as Google does. N.B. There may be other non-transparent ways Google determines its rankings. Also, this method has no way of determining if other, non-Leiter identified philosophy journals are higher ranked via Google.

25 Australasian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index =15, h5-median = 21)
26 Economics and Philosophy (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19)
27 Inquiry (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 19)
28 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (h5-index = 12, h5-median = 15)
29 European Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 17)
30 The Monist (h5-index = 10, h5-median = 15)
31 Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13)
32 Social Philosophy and Policy (h5-index 10, h5-median = 13)
33 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 16)
34 Ratio (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 11)
35 Utilitas (h5-index = 9, h5-median = 10)
36 Canadian Journal of Philosophy (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 14)
37 American Philosophy Quarterly (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 13)
38 Continental Philosophy Review (h5-index = 8, h5-median = 9)
39 Journal of the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 7, h5-median = 14)
40 British Journal for the History of Philosophy (h5-index = 5, h5-median = 6)
41 Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 12)
42 Review of Metaphysics (h5-index = 4, h5-median = 5)

N.B. Journals with the same h5-index and h5-median scores via Google Scholar I have ranked in their order of appearance in Leiter's rankings.

CONTACT THE AUTHOR
Dr Kate Devitt
Email: skdevitt@gmail.com
Twitter: @skdevitt
Website: http://skdevitt.com

What is the contribution of conscious reflection to reliabilist justification?

Abstract submitted to the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness

Screencapture from 2001: A Space Odyssey

This poster addresses the justificatory role of conscious reflection within a naturalized, reliabilist epistemology. Reliabilism is the view that implicit, mechanistic (System 1) processes can justify beliefs, e.g. perceptual beliefs formed after a history of consistent exposure to normal lighting conditions are justified in a given context with normal lighting. A popular variant of reliabilism is virtue epistemology where the cognitive circumstances and abilities of an agent play a justificatory role, e.g. the cooperation of the prefrontal cortex and primary visual cortex of the individual perceiving the Müller-Lyer illusion partly justify the belief that the lines are equi-length. While virtue epistemology is a well-endorsed reliabilism for implicit beliefs, its application to explicit, consciously reflective (System 2) processes is more controversial. Critics ask: How can iterations of dumb reliabilist processes produce higher order justification? To respond to this concern, I draw on another agent-centred, normative and reliabilist epistemology—Bayesian epistemology. A Bayesian virtue epistemology argues that reflective hypothesis-testing generated by (largely) implicit Bayesian mechanisms offers higher order reliabilist justification for beliefs. Iterative Bayesian mechanisms (e.g. hierarchically nested probabilistic models) explain the development of higher order beliefs about abstract concepts such as causation, natural laws and theoretical entities traditionally explained by recourse to vague concepts such as ‘the a priori’, ‘intuition’ or ‘the intellect’. A hybrid Bayesian virtue epistemology offers an iterative reliabilist framework to explain how conscious reflection justifies beliefs. However, I acknowledge limitations on Bayesian accounts of justification such as confirmational holism, commutativity, and the frame problem.

Bayesian Virtue Epistemology

Abstract submitted to the Australasian Association of Philosophy (AAP) 2014


Ammonite


Reflective knowledge is the pinnacle of human functioning, traditionally conceived of as the reservoir of the a priori—a revered, almost mystical mental faculty through which Platonic ideals, truths, and axioms depart the heavens and settle on the brow of mortal man. In contrast, reliabilist beliefs are merely dumb associations, forged by mechanistic repetition of limited cognition creating impoverished models of the external world. In this paper, I splice together these apparently conflicting processes by examining Ernest Sosa’s higher order reliabilist account of reflective knowledge within virtue epistemology. To resolve deficiencies within Sosa’s account I draw on another agent-centred, normative and reliabilist epistemology—Bayesian epistemology.

Critics of Sosa's view argue that reliabilism is too weak to do the work of reflective knowledge. I respond that reflective knowledge may be forged from low-level beliefs according to Bayesian mechanisms found in hierarchically nested probabilistic models (HNPM). HNPM explain a child's development of higher order beliefs about abstract concepts such as causation, natural laws and theoretical entities. A hybrid Bayesian virtue epistemology emerges as a robust, empirically promising means to defend Sosa against his critics. Bayesian virtue epistemology is a higher-order reliabilism capable of generating genuine reflective knowledge.


Full paper:
Devitt, S.K. (2013). Homeostatic Epistemology: Reliability, coherence and coordination in a Bayesian virtue epistemology. PhD, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. pp.51-104. Retrieved from QUT ePrints.

Ecological Learning: Lessons from Charlotte Mason for the 21st C.


Charlotte Mason at the turn of the 20th Century

Education, for Charlotte Mason, was coming to know the world and one's place in it, rather than studying for exams or employment. She considered children capable of complex abstract ideas as well as detailed particulars. Her educational theories and methods advocated an experimental and observational approach to learning rather than a teacher-led experience dispensing facts. She had great respect for science and scientific methods. But, more than this, she wanted to nurture the curiosity and sense of wonder in the natural world. Her respect for children's experimental nature accords with recent work in developmental psychology that views the growing child's brain like that of a young scientist (see the work of Alison Gopnik on the child scientist). Charlotte thought that children are capable, but must be scaffolded to work every day. She says in Charlotte Mason's Home Education,

"Do not let the children pass a day without distinct efforts, intellectual, moral, volitional; let them brace themselves to understand; let them compel themselves to do and to bear; and let them do right at the sacrifice of ease and pleasure: and this for many higher reasons, but, in the first and lowest place, that the mere physical organ of mind and will may grow vigorous with work."


While Charlotte shared early educators' vision for hard work, she thought the classroom a poor catalyst for learning. Instead, she thought the best way to learn was outdoors.

"True, we must needs houses for shelter from the weather by day and for rest at night; but in proportion as we cease to make our houses 'comfortable,' as we regard them merely as necessary shelters when we cannot be out of doors, shall we enjoy to the full the vigorous vitality possible to us"

"On fine days when it is warm enough to sit out with wraps, why should not tea and breakfast, everything but a hot dinner, be served out of doors?... every hour spent in the open is a clear gain, tending to the increase of brain power and bodily vigour, and to the lengthening of life itself. They who know what it is to have fevered skin and throbbing brain deliciously soothed by the cool touch of the air are inclined to make a new rule of life, Never be within doors when you can rightly be without. Collapse )


Inspired by Charlotte Masons vision of education outdoors, I have created a digital artefact (Haiku Deck) as a testament to Charlotte Mason in the 21st century. My artefact explores how modern digital devices and constant access to information ought be combined for optimal well-being and attainment of knowledge. In this way I create utopian argument for the use of technology in education. The ideal location for learning is outdoors, therefore technology ought to augment human experiences within a natural environment and during hours spent under traditional habitation.

Ecological Learning [Haiku Deck] or Pinterest board

Draft assignment for eLearning & Digital Cultures MOOC

The Renaissance portrait, individualism and autobiographical memory

A new article in the New York Review of Books They Clamor for Our Attention: The Renaissance Portrait from Donatello to Bellini, connects the rise of the portrait with the rise of the individual in the early Renaissance. The article begins by discussing the uncontroversial view that the portrait was created at the end of the dark ages, leading into the Renaissance. More striking is the thesis that, along with the rise of the portrait came the invention of individual identity. This thesis stems from Burckhardt (1860)

Man [previously] was conscious of himself only as member of a race, people, party, family, or corporation--only through some general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all things of this world became possible. The subjective side at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis; man became a spiritual individual, and recognized himself as such. (Butterfield, p.10)


That is, prior to portraits, people didn't individuate themselves apart from their collective identity by religion, nationality, geographic area, gender etc... The portraits of normal people (rather than kings or popes), with great detail, supposedly represent the rise of the individual. Yet, the article points to a new exhibit and a new thesis that really, apart from facial details, typical portraits of the time show people in garb that clearly demarcates them as part of a group (e.g. ruling class of Florence). Butterfield (2012) states:

In Burckhardt's formulation, the individual was seen in distinction from the group. But in the exhibition what we often view are individuals portrayed as the preeminent and exemplary representatives of groups; the men and women are depicted as distinguished members of a virtuosu and honored elite (p.10).


Thus, while portraits certainly paved the way for a shift in the representation of individuals, did they really contribute to the invention of individuation?

This thesis particularly interests me because of a book I've read called Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of the Narrative Self. In this book, there is much discussion of cross-cultural differences in the way we construct self-identity. For example, the Maori in NZ raise their children to be able to retell, in great detail, the events that have recently occurred in their lives. Where as, (studied) rural Indians do not encourage remembering individual events, rather a person's memories tend to be about events that happened to the group, such as floods, food availability etc..., . Thus, the cultural norms for autobiographical memory have a big impact on how one describes and potentially conceptualizes oneself.

Of course, that doesn't mean that identity itself depends on how one describes it. A person's identity over time is defined by a set of interconnected memory events (a version of Locke's theory), but these memory events frequently do not inform conscious reflection. For example, I am the same person as the 2yr old version of me, even though I cannot remember anything that happened before autobiographical memory came online (probably between 3-4). That is, all my memories, implicit and explicit together, define my identity. It's important to remember that there are a lot of memory systems and self-perception only taps into a fraction of that which makes us the same person.

Anyway, if self-perception is largely culturally constructed, then what was going on for these Renaissance individuals, such that they thought of themselves differently? Indeed, did they change at all? I mean, just because I get a staff card with my photo on it, doesn't impinge on my self-image created and fostered by my parents, school and society.

References:
Burckhardt, J. (1860) The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy.
Butterfield, A. (2012) They clamor for our attention: The Renaissance Portrait from Donatello to Bellini. The New York Review of Books. LIX(4), 10-12
Fivush, R. Haden, C.A. (2003) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of the Narrative Self. Psychology Press.

Have we become more depressed because we have stopped memorising?

Education from ancient greece to early 20th century was largely a process of memorisation. Students were expected to learn, remember and use a large variety of cultural materials to furnish their thoughts, words and actions. Once finished with studies, students would continue to have poetry, literature, theatre, religion and history to draw on, wherever they were, when ruminating on particular struggles through their lives. Take Shakespeare, woven throughout his dialogues are poetic and cultural references and yet he was writing for a largely illiterate audience. These references may have helped people challenge their unhelpful thoughts.

I want to look at two things have occurred in the west, in the late 20th century in terms of their impact on mental health [1]. The first is the trend in education to avoid memorisation and the second is the development and refinement of various cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT).

Since the education revolution of the 1970s, students in the west have largely stopped memorising. With the rise of the internet in the 1990s, this process has all but ceased, even for adults who were brought up believing that memorisation was an important aspect of living one's life. Advocates of the extended mind might say that access to the internet or books makes memorisation obsolete. But, think of driving one's car across town, or rock climbing or trying to cook a meal whilst managing anxiety and/or depression. When individuals are alone with their thoughts, when they cannot plug into the internet, or even when they can plug in, they can't necessarily bring to mind a reference or activity that would calm them, offer advice or solace to guide them back to a rational state of mind. Depressed people often turn to social applications such as FB to get help or to feel better, and can spend quite a deal of time there without any progress in their mental state at all. Even if a person does open a relevant page, they can find it difficult to concentrate or absorb external information in a psychopathic state of mind. I claim that the mnemonic structures found in religious texts, poetry and so forth used to form a buffer against one's own negative thoughts and no longer plays such a central role in people's daily mental health management. That is, there is something different about memorising and it could be the key to fixing depression. But, I'm not advocating a return to religion in order to get benefits.

I argue that the most important thing about memorising is that it makes it easier to resolve negative affect. When content is memorised it becomes effective self-talk, springing effortlessly to mind. Lack of energy, poor problem solving and reduced cognitive function are features of depression. I compare this process to learning self-defence by practising moves over and over again without threat, so that in the event of an actual attack, reactions are swift and effective. This leads me to CBT.

CBT is a set of methods of challenging unhelpful thoughts. It has been empirically shown [1] to have a large impact on "unipolar depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, social phobia, post traumatic stress disorder, and childhood depressive and anxiety disorders" [2]. The techniques are varied and have been refined over decades, but the principles are clear. What improves depression is when patients actively acknowledge distorted thoughts, challenge them and/or observe them to lessen their impact. The process is very intense, confronting and requires discipline and perseverance to carry out. Part of the effort involved is absorbing and retaining the various 'reframes' of negative thought patterns into realistic, positive, yet believable statements--i.e. memorising them. Patients must begin by quite laboriously writing out their thoughts and analysing them. But, with time and practise those new thought patterns become dominant and reflexive. They have been memorised and are accessible, even during an 'attack'.

Much of the effectiveness of CBT is due to the benefit of memorisation, a skill known for thousands of years, but perhaps only recently rediscovered.

[1] I focus on the west in this case. But, clearly depression exists in Asian cultures and they have a very strong focus on memorisation. I should be very clear then in stating that I do not mean that memorising anything will help depression. But, that using memorisation with CBT (or perhaps religious texts, poetry etc…) is the combination required to ease symptoms.

[2] Butler, A.C., Chapman, J.E., Forman, E.M., Beck, A.T. (2006) The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses Clinical Psychology Review 26(1) 17-31.