Listing and ranking journals by various criteria--"AEA equivalent pages," citations, etc.--has been a common academic enterprise for the past two decades or so. A few economists have built their reputations on these exercises. I agree with Professor McCloskey that such rankings are of dubious scholarly merit, and are toxic when applied to assess the work of specific economists. Professor McCloskey is right on the money in suggesting dummy journals in any sample. I recall such a study in the AEA some time ago in which economists were asked to indicate how often they consulted journals. A really rigorous sounding dummy and more historical/institutional sounding dummy were included in a list of journals. The historical/institutional dummy did quite badly--almost nobody indicated that they used. The analytical/theoretical dummy did better (as I recall) than some actual journals. I am also concerned about the accuracy of citations as measures of impact or quality of scholarship. With the concentration of editors and authors in a relatively small number of universities, and an understandable bias toward citing the work of known economists, I have the distinct (but not empirically tested) suspicion that there is a good bit of quality scholarship that goes uncited. Coupling this with the omission of HET journals (until recently) from the major citation service makes citations a particularly thorny issues as the major or sole criterion for assessing the scholarly value of our work. On the other hand (there's always the other hand), a proliferation of journals of unknown quality and peer review standards makes it possible to publish a lot of stuff (a technical term) that is of dubious quality--some of it quite bad. This can lead to a mindless "counting articles" measure with no consideration of the quality of the work. The only resolution of this issue that I can hazard is not very imaginative. We can assess the quality of scholarly journal articles by reading them ourselves, rather than relying on questionable quantitative substitutes for reading and thought. I have not been able to convince many of my colleagues that this is a better approach to assessing our work. Mike Bradley