Talk:Synthese

Pronunciation
Some enterprising fellow should tell us how "Synthese" is pronounced. I think it's something like san thayze. 86.166.160.196 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Synthese editorial controversy (2011)
The section on this is both brief and biased. The characterization of the controversy as having stemmed out of procedural issues is certainly what the editors-in-chief (EICs) at Synthese would like everyone to think, but the record shows something different. Nor was process internal to Synthese the only action that occurred.

As a participant in the incident and victim of the EICs myself, I don't feel comfortable editing the main article. However, I will provide some links that help give a fuller view of this incident.

2011/04/14 John Wilkins on the likelihood that the EICs took their action due to pressure from intelligent design creationists

2011/04 Brian Leiter recommends a boycott of Synthese by philosophers; John Wilkins takes on coordination of the boycott

2011/04/20 "Inside Higher Ed" article taking note of the controversy and Leiter's initiation of a boycott

2011/04/21 New APPS blog post on the lack of response of the EICs to particular issues raised by the guest editors

2011/04/23 My blog post on unprofessional conduct of the EICs

2011/05/07 My blog post on apparent issues in effective communication with the EICs and Francis Beckwith

2011/05/13 New York Times article on the controversy In my opinion, a weak effort, but it does show that the "process" rationalization is conspicuous by its absence at that time.

2011/05/14 My blog post providing a transcript of the text in an image of the response the EICs posted The Synthese EICs went so far as to establish a new domain to post a response, and used an image of text rather than text to do it, ensuring there would be no search engine indexing of the text of their response there. The EICs have also allowed their response domain, syntpetition.info, to lapse, and it now offers spammy-looking stuff about debt. This does not look like process as usual, or even that the EICs were restoring professional process to their system.

The point of all the above is that the Synthese editorial controversy does have more to it than is indicated in the main article. This is both verifiable and notable. Any revision should note the existence of the response of the guest editors, the Synthese boycott, and the wider notice of the controversy.

(Signing this now. Forgot to earlier.)

-Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Synthese really the top philosophy journal?
The article claims that Synthese is the top rated journal in philosophy. That is true via the metric mentioned, but according to other metrics it’s far from it. For example, the widely regarded Simago Journal Rankings have it 26th according to their custom metric. According to H-index it’s 12th, and according to average cites per article (past 2 years) it’s 37th. Presenting it as the top journal without any reference to these alternative metrics along which it’s far from the top journal is inappropriate.

Stellaathena (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I edited the article to address that issue. Biogeographist (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A/ The reference is a blog of unclear significance and B/ as described above, other sources rank this way below "top". --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The reference is a blog of unclear significance". Do you work in philosophy? The leiter blog probably the most significant public blog in the field. Please also note that the article for the Ergo journal also includes the exact sentence, and is rated lower. TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This blog claims for the journal a status that is in contradiction with other widely accepted ratings, which does not make me trust the blog very much. In addition, even if we'd take the blog as a RS, it only ranks Synthese 11th out of 25, which I wouldn't call "one of the best" but more something that's in the middle. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like - and I'm trying to say this with as much respect as I can in this situation - you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's evident to me you don't work in philosophy, and don't know anything about philosophy journals. Brian Leiter is an extremely well-established name in the field. His Philosophical Gourmet Report is the gold standard for graduate students. It's made by surveying actual philosophers. The poll referenced in the link above surveys actual philosophers too. I don't know what other "widely accepted ratings" you're referring to, but the one referced above, Scimago, isn't made by philosophers - it's just a ranking computed bsaed on number of citations and other criterion. I've never heard a single philosopher mention Scimago.
 * Second, it ranks Synthese as 11th, out of all philosophy journals. There are 100s, if not 1000s of philosophy journals, as you can see here: https://www.apaonline.org/general/recommended_links.asp?cc=33093 (These are just the ones worth mentioning.) TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could Drmies explain why the edits were removed? I have now added 5 different independent sources, including a peer-revied meta-analysis of philosophy journal rankings. Is there a source you can find disputing this?
 * (Secondly, I'm not sure what consensus you're asking for - the edits I made now simply list Synthese's ranking.) TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Undid revision. I now have 5 different sources agreeing on the point. No one has provided me with a single source that seems to suggest otherwise. Moreover, the text now reports the sources rankings. This is as objective as you can get. The burden now should be on someone who disagrees to back up their claim. Also, no one has responded to the point that I made originally, namely that Ergo_(journal) has the exact sentence I added, even though it is ranked lower. It seems inconsistent to be OK with including it there, but not here. TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016, you do not have five. You have three, at best, because the DailyNous link, which by the way looks like a personal blog run by a single person, is merely a note on the Boudewijn de Bruin article, and the last one, the "Journal archive", tells us there are a lot of journals (I suppose you counted to 500 there).The Leiter report you cited is methodologically highly questionable--the explanatory note is not insightful, and it seems to have been a survey among a thousand people--what kind of survey? Who are the people? The link goes to a survey site, not to a survey, so who knows. My daughter is running for Student of the Week; I've voted four times already. Finally, the Leiter report itself, the one you're so fond of, is as questionable as his other rankings, as far as I can tell, and so the Leiter rankings shouldn't be reported on at all.So that leaves you two sources, the de Bruin article and the Scimago article. You keep saying "no one has arguments for disagreeing", but you should perhaps start by arguing for the reliability of the Scimago ranking, given the problems recognized by for instance this editorial note. And Scimago is based on Scopus data (and Scopus is owned by Elsevier, another outfit accused of foul play), which are clear as mud. Journal (and university) rankings are already opaque enough. I am against using Scimago, and the burden is actually on you: you weren't citing a peer-reviewed journal; you were citing an unexplained ranking based on unexplained data published from a non-peer reviewed database. You are welcome to take that to WP:RSN.That leaves one single source/chart, the one published by Boudewijn de Bruin, which I have not yet mined in depth; though it seems solid, it's published in the journal itself, which is odd; at the very least you should attribute the ranking to author and publication. Finally, you shouldn't have put that in the lead; it makes it look even more promotional. Oh, and can you please NOT use bare URLs the next time you insert a (seriously modified) version? Because I am going to revert you. Ping to . Drmies (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm very confused what would convince you. I think that a certain standard is good enough, you don't. How do we decide whether a certain source is good enough?
 * Well, it seems to me the obvious answer is compare this article (about Synthese) to other about other Wikipedia articles about journals, and then use the sources that these articles use (when there are common ones) on this article. This is a point that I've emphasized several times, but which both of you have conveniently ignored.
 * Let's start with the Leiter source, which for some reason both of you despise, but as someone who actually works professionaly in philosophy and strongly connected with the community, it is a very reliable source. (To answer your question, Leiter uses surveys of professional philosphy faculty at top universities in the world. You wouldn't be able to vote in Leiter - neither would your daughter - because you aren't professional philosophers at top universities.) Now, obviously, you disagree and think this is an unreliable source. But as I said, we can ignore this. Let's look at the other Wikipedia articles instead. Here is a list of Wikipedia articles that all cite Leiter. The Philosophical Review, Ergo_(journal), and The Journal of Philosophy are the first three I could find in a preliminary search. All of these Wikipedia articles mention and cite Leiter. So, to count it as reliable in enough in one article, but not the others strikes me as obviously inconsistent. (The authors of these pages clearly thought they were reliable; we shouldn't we?)
 * Let's move on to Scimago. I think that it's very easy to see again that this source has been used in Wikipedia articles, even and especially, in Wikipedia articles about non-philosophy journals. For example, the article on Nature (journal) cites it. (Remember, that an article not citing it isn't evidence for the fact that the author that it unreliable. However, that an author does cite is sufficently to think that they thought that it was reliable enough to be included).
 * Let's find other sources. I also noticed that the Nature (journal) article cites Google scholar, which seems to me another good source to rely on. (But regardless, the point I'm making is that other Wikipedia articles do use it, so now the onus is on you to explain this inconsistency). Google scholar ranks Synthese as #1. (See the link here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=hum_philosophy).
 * Oh, and the Journal Citation Report, which is already included in the article puts Synthese at 12th! (again out of all philosophy journals). Isn't this some evidence - given that you are OK with including this source?? https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr-jp/journal-profile?journal=SYNTHESE&year=2022&fromPage=%2Fjcr%2Fhome
 * Finally, as you yourself admit, the peer-reviewed published meta-analysis by Boudewijn de Bruin seems to be a good source. Why did you remove that if you agree?
 * After all this, it's baffling to me to not think that there's at least some evidence that Synthese is a top journal, and something in the vicinity can legitimately be included in the Wikipedia article. It's also clear that you're just going to remove anything I try add. So, what do you propose we can  add, given this evidence I just discussed?
 * P.S. Sorry about the bare URLs thing. I'm not sure what you mean though. What should I do differently? TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit short on time, so just one point: comparing this article to others and then take those as examples is a bad idea, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). As for Scopus/Scimago, I agree that very few people pay any attention to it, which is why I routinely remove mention of Scimago in journal articles. And it clearly is impossible for me to "police" all the thousands of journal articles that we have, so I don't doubt that a certain number, or even many, articles cite it (see the links in the previous sentence). --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016, if you're going to go "you", then please ping me, thanks. Bare URLs--that's where you simply stick a URL in a reference rather than a proper citation template, as used elsewhere in the article. You asked why I removed the de Bruijn reference--well I did say that this material shouldn't be in the lead, and you've reverted these edits five times already.The "but look at this article" thing that you throw at us, that criticized, you're doing it also with the "Journal Citation Report". Why did I leave that in? Well, I haven't even seen it yet, having focused on the material you keep adding to the lead. So I have nothing to say on it (and "given that you are OK with including this source" is thus based on a false premise); I spent an hour already on following up on your material. And as Randykitty indicated, whether or not that Leiter Report is cited in other articles doesn't matter to me, and it's the same with Scimago. As I said, there's enough problems with both, but no, I am not going to run through all the Wikipedia articles right now to remove it. We like to say "Wikipedia is not a valid reference for Wikipedia" and that applies here as well. If any of those articles are FAs or GAs, that might be a different matter. If you want to add the de Bruijn ranking to the "Indexing" section and place it in a sub-section, properly ascribed, I'm fine with that--but I'm not OK with putting it in the lead. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "whether or not that Leiter Report is cited in other articles doesn't matter to me, and it's the same with Scimago". Whether you don't approve of this doesn't matter to me and it's the same with Randykitty. See a direct quote from the source you just sent me "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." I'm inclined to include Scimago and Leiter, other articles do, so I think it should stay. Please actually make a constructive contribution. So far, all you've done is remove my edits. I've actually been contributing to this article. I know this may come as a surprise but having lots of edits doesn't make you an authority.TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're not authorities, but so far three editors have questioned your edits, so you most certainly have no consensus for this addition, so I'll revert again. . --Randykitty (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Randykitty, did they really just reinstate that stuff? And did they really, again, say "you" to me without pinging me? (Thanks for the ping--I wouldn't have known.) And what do you think they meant by "the source you sent me"? I didn't send them anything, and their "inclinations"--well I don't want to think about that. Anyway, I have yet to see a cogent argument: have you? When I get a moment I'm just taking this to ANI or to AN3. Do you think they know that besides lots of edits we also have terminal degrees in our fields, and experience with the publishing industry? Drmies (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. And, no, I they didn't send anything to me either. As for the our degrees and such, what they seem to know is that we "aren't professional philosophers at top universities". :-DDD --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Drmies @Randykitty
 * I have now made several concessions.
 * 1) I have moved the text from the lead.
 * 2) I have created a new separate section as you suggsted.
 * 3) I have added more sources.
 * 4) I switched from evalutive language ("best philosophy journals") to objective language ("ranked by X as Y").
 * So far, neither of you have contributed anything beyond removing any edit I add without justification. I'm confused - I think an edit is good. You disagree. You remove it without making any contribution or any changes. I add back with revisions. Who is being constructive here and who is being destructive? Why should your edits stay while mine don't? Just as you think I don't have consensus, you don't have consensus either. Unlike you, I am actually moving on my position by making concessions. So far, neither of you has contributed one iota besides simply deleting everything.
 * "the source you sent me" referred to this link which you sent me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. According to this link, you should avoid dismissing an entire argument merely because it references other Wikipedia articles. But it's obviously true that you can take a source being used in several other articles as some evidence that it is worth mentioning. (Note my concession which I mentioned above. I'm now longer evaluating the results of the source, merely describing that such and such source said such and such.)
 * I have yet to see a single cogent argument that anything I have put here should not be included besides "we don't like this source". I have given good reasons above why those soures should be included. I have seen nothing of the sort from you. TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

(I'm outdenting because of the list of bullet points) TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016, I think I gave a pretty summary of what we think the problem is with Leiter and his report, and for you to dismiss that as "I don't like it" is a specious counterargument and a violation of WP:AGF. Yes, a source being used in several articles is sometimes an indication that it's not crap, but it doesn't mean that therefore in this case it is good to use--that argument is fallacious. Perhaps its use was never discussed. Perhaps it slipped under the radar. Perhaps...well, I think the point is clear.You keep accusing us of destructive behavior--well, we're critical thinkers, but that doesn't make our edits destructive. Removing poor content is not destructive; it's constructive. You suggest we should do (other) things to improve the article, and by not doing that we are being destructive--that is not my point of view. Au contraire: your moving that promotional content from the lead has been constructive, and you wouldn't have done it had we not prompted you. At the same time, you keep making false accusations, you keep on edit warring, you have again inserted bare URLs (which is absolutely a bad thing; see Bare URLs). And promotional editing using the Leiter blog seems to be a pattern--this is how you started a page on the NYU department of philosophy, with a claim to greatness supported by Leiter, and a claim of "particular strengths" supported by the departmental website. I don't think you're being paid by them, don't get me wrong, but I do think you place Leiter's blog (well, formerly) in higher regard than some others do. That's fine--but don't accuse us of being "destructive" when we disagree, strongly, with your judgment and your editorial behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Destructive??? Not contributing one iota??? Just have a look at some of the stuff that I contributed to this article. You come here with a handful of edits behind your belt, blissfully unaware of how things are done here and start yelling at us because we don't immediately see the brilliance of your edits... I take exception to your characterization of my contributions as "destructive" and "not contributing an iota". --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randykitty@Drmies
 * 1) You're accusing me of personal attacks, but I did not attack your person, but your editing. I called your actions destructive. That's relevant to what is at dispute.
 * 2) "handful of edits behind your belt". That, on the other hand, is a personal attack. I suggest you take your own advice. The number of edits I have has no connection to whether the points I made are correct or not. Edit: going into my edit history and suggesting I am biased (but not "paid for it". Wow, thanks for that concession) is another personal attack. My previous edit history has nothing to do with my argument above.
 * 3) When I said it seems as if you're not contributing, I'm clearly not referring to any other edits you have made on the website. Obviously not. Nor am I referring to other edits you have  made on the page. Obviously not. I'm referring to your contributions to the thing we are disputing - Synthese's standing. To which, I repeat, neither of you have contributed one iota, since you have done nothing so far but totally remove every edit I have tried to add. I have made many concessions so far - I have tried to move closer to your position (see 1-4 from my previous comment). So far, neither of you have done that at all. You've just deleted. That doesn't strike me as constructive.
 * 4) "Removing poor content is not destructive". That is what is at disupte. I think it's not poor content. Your job now, if you would like contribute to this article is to do something besides deleting everything I add. (Surely, you can see that I think your edits are poor content. What I did - was make concessions, changes, and alterations to the text I contributed, to bring it closer to consensus). TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you done? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)