In reaction to Deirdre McCloskey's email the following:

It's just Harro, in our country we jump to first names very quickly. 
Apart from the question whether native competence is an argument or not, 
we have a flourishing history and methodology chair in Amsterdam. In 
Rotterdam, there is an equally flourishing institute for the philosophy 
of economics at Erasmus University, EIPE, (which you know well enough), 
and Nijmegen (to the East of the Country) at Radbout University, history 
and methodology are growing as well, thanks to Esther-Mirjam Sent and 
her colleagues. Not to mention the other faculties in my country where 
history and/or methodology are taught. I don't say things are perfect 
here, far from so, but my impression is this is quite an exceptional 
record and it does not fit the image that history and/or methodology are 
just considered a "waste of time". So, no it is not a rhetorical truth 
that ranking systems just help to raise those academics who "most 
energetically follow American 'standards'", at least not for the 
Netherlands. Quite to the contrary, despite all that can be said against 
them, they can well serve as a lever to protect us from thoughtless 
acceptance of such standards.

To bring this discussion back to David Teira's initial list of journals: 
to me it is a nuisance to find that a Dutch history of science journal 
as Gewina, whatever its merits, is listed as a C journal on a history of 
science list, and that journals like EJHET, JHET, HOPE, JEM etc. are not 
even on. I do think it is important to think about whom we talk to and 
whom we write for, and I would like to see the history of science 
community as part of my audience. I think it is a problem if that 
community does not quite see the history of economics as part of their 
discipline.

Vriendelijke groeten (kind regards), harro

Harro Maas