Beyond quality metrics: defying journal rankings as the philosopher’s stone of mathematics education research

Melissa Andrade-Molina, Alex Montecino, Mario Sánchez Aguilar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


In recent years, the field of mathematics education has witnessed the emergence of several journal rankings. Within these rankings, Ibero-American journals have had little—to almost no—presence. This raises awareness on the current state of journal indexes and on what these indexes do and how they have been used in constituting sites of exclusion within the mathematics education community. We contend that ranking systems are perceived as the philosopher’s stone of academia, in the sense that they have the ability to convert any material (an article, a journal, the academic production of a scholar) into a precious material within the academic world. This alchemic move not only exacerbates exclusion, but also configures a point system that constitutes places for enjoyment and fetishistic disavowal within researchers. Thus, we want to challenge the assumption that mainstream journal rankings are able to accurately reflect the quality, impact, and reputation of mathematics education journals by taking as “empirical data” the Ibero-American journals in the field of mathematics education. In problematizing journal ranking effects in the production, dissemination, and socialization of knowledge, we seek to open a discussion regarding the economic-political dynamics that govern publishing practices in mathematics education and that are entangled in the production of knowledge in our discipline.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)359-374
Number of pages16
JournalEducational Studies in Mathematics
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1 Mar 2020


  • Enjoyment
  • Exclusion
  • Fetishistic disavowal
  • Journal indexing
  • Ranking effects


Dive into the research topics of 'Beyond quality metrics: defying journal rankings as the philosopher’s stone of mathematics education research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this