Journal rankings · indicator year 2014
Choose a field to open its ranking, or a journal to find its row in its subfield’s list.
Subfield ranking · 2014
History and Philosophy of Science journal rankings 2014
27 ranked journals · Subfield in Arts and Humanities
History and Philosophy of Science has 27 ranked journals in 2014. The median OJR rose 0.27 on 2013 to 0.98, below the world average of 1.00; Q1 starts at OJR 1.55. The top three are European Journal for Philosophy of Science, Osiris, and Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A.
Ranks and citation indicators: 2014. Journal access status and listed APC: source snapshot September 23, 2026.
Journals whose main subfield sits in this category and that published at least 30 citable documents (articles, reviews and conference papers) in 2011–2013, the window the 2014 score is computed on.
The OpenJournalRank Indicator (OJR) is a free, publicly available metric of a journal’s field-normalized citation impact, computed from open OpenAlex citation data. It compares citations to a journal’s papers from the previous three years with the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type, so 1.00 is the world average and values can be compared across fields. It is computed with the NCI3 method.
The middle OJR among ranked journals in this category: half score higher, half lower. 1.00 is the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type.
The dot is this category, the solid tick is the median of all ranked journals and the dashed line is the world average.
Share of ranked journals in this category that are fully open access, so every paper is free to read. Hybrid journals, which sell subscriptions and open single papers for a fee, are not counted.
Median list price of the article processing charge, in US dollars, among ranked journals in this category that list a price above zero. Journals with a listed APC of $0 and journals with no known price are left out of this median. The At a glance table below gives a second median that includes the $0 prices.
Subfields of Arts and Humanities (13)
27 ranked journals
Filters
Rank is the position by OJR within the list on screen; 1 is the highest. | OJR is field-normalized 3-year citation impact: 1.00 is the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type, so values compare across fields. The badge is the journal’s quartile in this list. | Citations per paper over a two-year window, counted from OpenAlex. It is not field-normalized, so compare it only between journals of the same field. ▲ or ▼ is the change from 2013. This is OpenJournalRank’s own count, not Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor. | Citable documents (articles, reviews and conference papers) published in 2011–2013, the window the 2014 OJR is computed on. A journal needs at least 30 to be ranked. | Share of the journal’s 2011–2013 papers that are free to read in any open-access form. The green OA tag next to a title marks a fully open-access journal. | List price of the article processing charge in US dollars. “$0 listed” means the listed price is zero; a dash means no price is listed. | The line is the journal’s OJR from 2005 to 2014. | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1European Journal for Philosophy of ScienceSpringer Science+Business Media · Netherlands | 2.30Q1 | 1.77 0.18 up from 2013 | 61 | 22% | $2,190 | ||
2OsirisUniversity of Chicago Press · United States | 2.11Q1 | 1.07 1.08 down from 2013 | 41 | 24% | — | ||
3Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part AElsevier BV · United Kingdom | 2.11Q1 | 0.82 0.08 down from 2013 | 244 | 25% | $2,930 | ||
4The British Journal for the Philosophy of ScienceOxford University Press · United States | 1.94Q1 | 1.70 0.10 up from 2013 | 150 | 30% | — | ||
5IsisUniversity of Chicago Press · United States | 1.81Q1 | 0.88 0.14 up from 2013 | 159 | 4% | — | ||
6Philosophy of ScienceCambridge University Press · United States | 1.56Q1 | 1.42 0.01 up from 2013 | 237 | 28% | $3,550 | ||
7The British Journal for the History of ScienceCambridge University Press · United Kingdom | 1.55Q1 | 0.99 0.18 up from 2013 | 118 | 14% | $3,550 | ||
8Environment and HistoryUnited Kingdom | 1.38Q2 | 0.82 0.43 up from 2013 | 73 | 18% | — | ||
9Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied SciencesOxford University Press · United Kingdom | 1.20Q2 | 0.72 0.32 up from 2013 | 171 | 10% | $4,448 | ||
10International Studies in the Philosophy of ScienceRoutledge · United Kingdom | 1.12Q2 | 0.61 0.39 down from 2013 | 116 | 24% | — | ||
11Bulletin of the history of medicineJohns Hopkins University Press · United States | 1.10Q2 | 0.30 0.33 down from 2013 | 244 | 7% | — | ||
12Biological TheorySpringer Science+Business Media · Netherlands | 1.10Q2 | 1.07 0.07 down from 2013 | 150 | 22% | $3,290 | ||
| 1.04Q2 | 1.21 0.02 down from 2013 | 264 | 19% | $2,420 | |||
14Perspectives on ScienceThe MIT Press · United States | 0.98Q2 | 0.83 0.52 down from 2013 | 79 | 14% | — | ||
15Journal for General Philosophy of ScienceSpringer Science+Business Media · Netherlands | 0.95Q3 | 0.69 0.12 up from 2013 | 88 | 18% | $3,290 | ||
16THEORIA An International Journal for Theory History and Foundations of ScienceOAUniversity of the Basque Country · Spain | 0.88Q3 | 0.62 0.09 down from 2013 | 81 | 100% | — | ||
17Journal of the History of BiologySpringer Science+Business Media · Netherlands | 0.83Q3 | 0.77 0.08 up from 2013 | 63 | 13% | $3,090 | ||
18Evolution Education and OutreachOABioMed Central · United Kingdom | 0.83Q3 | 1.08 0.36 up from 2013 | 182 | 100% | $2,390 | ||
19Foundations of ScienceSpringer Science+Business Media · Netherlands | 0.75Q3 | 1.42 0.81 up from 2013 | 117 | 21% | $2,390 | ||
20Interdisciplinary Science ReviewsTaylor & Francis · United Kingdom | 0.72Q3 | 0.80 0.01 down from 2013 | 82 | 15% | $4,150 | ||
21Social History of MedicineOxford University Press · United Kingdom | 0.59Q3 | 0.22 0.05 down from 2013 | 394 | 10% | $3,864 | ||
22Scientiae StudiaOABrazil | 0.39Q4 | 0.26 0.09 up from 2013 | 96 | 100% | — | ||
23ConfigurationsJohns Hopkins University Press · United States | 0.38Q4 | 0.16 0.06 up from 2013 | 60 | 6% | — | ||
24CentaurusWiley · Belgium | 0.36Q4 | 0.41 0.11 up from 2013 | 110 | 7% | $2,500 | ||
25Spontaneous Generations A Journal for the History and Philosophy of ScienceOAInstitute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto · Canada | 0.34Q4 | 0.30 0.11 up from 2013 | 54 | — | — | ||
26Technology and CultureJohns Hopkins University Press · United States | 0.30Q4 | 0.21 0.08 up from 2013 | 460 | 7% | — | ||
27Reports - National Center for Science Education (U.S.)United States | 0.05Q4 | 0.00no change | 65 | 0% | — |
Subfields of Arts and Humanities, with History and Philosophy of Science highlighted.
- Language and Linguistics123
- Philosophy79
- Archeology55
- Literature and Literary Theory50
- History and Philosophy of Science27
- Music25
- Conservation20
- Visual Arts and Performing Arts18
- Museology17
- History8
- Classics0
- General Arts and Humanities0
- Religious studies0
Journals
Citations made in 2014. Corpus-wide, 77.7% of core-journal articles and reviews published that year have at least one matched reference; the share varies by journal and field.
6 additional History and Philosophy of Science journals with metrics are unranked under this release’s eligibility rules: a journal needs at least 30 citable documents in 2011–2013, at least 80% of them with a subfield, and a positive world-average expectation. Ranks are within the whole category; filters hide rows without re-ranking. OJR excludes self-citations.
At a glance
Indicator year: 2014. Publication window: 2011–2013. How these summaries are calculated
- Ranked journals
- 27
- Window papers (baseline)
- 26,253 +8.3% from indicator year 2011
- Median OJR
- 0.984 +56.4% from indicator year 2011
- Rising journals (2025)
- 0
Window papers are the baseline paper population: citable papers (articles, reviews and conference papers) from 2011–2013 in all journals of the world-average baseline, including non-core journals, counted by each paper’s own subfield. They are not the papers of the ranked journals alone.
| Measure | Year series | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranked journals | 20 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 26 | 26 | 27 | 27 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 28 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 28 | 28 | 27 | 27 | |
| Window papers (baseline) | 13,164 | 14,084 | 14,938 | 15,820 | 16,468 | 17,489 | 18,503 | 19,361 | 20,374 | 21,585 | 23,214 | 24,241 | 24,944 | 25,411 | 26,253 | 27,298 | 28,143 | 29,168 | 29,718 | 30,514 | 31,382 | 31,648 | 31,207 | 29,590 | 28,275 | 26,958 | |
| Median OJR | 0.57 | 0.47 | 0.820 | 0.65 | 0.43 | 0.58 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 1.06 | 0.824 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.80 | 0.71 | 0.984 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 1.11 | 1.08 | 0.98329 | 0.92 | 0.98327 | 0.981 | 0.84 | 0.73 |
How to read these rankings
- OJR, the OpenJournalRank Indicator
- A field-normalized 3-year citation impact, computed from OpenAlex with the NCI3 method. It divides the citations a journal’s papers received by the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type, so 1.00 is the world average and 2.00 means twice as many citations as expected. Because it is normalized, it can be compared across fields. Read the methodology
- Quartiles
- Q1 to Q4 split the ranked journals of the list you are viewing into four equal groups by OJR. A journal’s quartile depends on the list: the same journal can be Q1 in its subfield and Q2 among all journals.
- Impact factor (2-year)
- Citations per paper over a two-year window, counted from OpenAlex. It is easy to compare with familiar impact factors but is not field-normalized, so compare it only within a field. It is not Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor. Why it differs from the Journal Impact Factor
- Rank ranges
- Each rank in the latest year carries a likely range from 1,000 resamples of the journal’s papers. Where two journals’ ranges overlap, the data cannot tell them apart, so treat neighbouring ranks as ties.