Last updated on

Clinical Oncology
Latest Impact Factor IF - Analysis · Trend · Prediction · Ranking


User Feedback

Journal Impact IF

2020-2021

4.126

32.5%

Journal Impact IF Trend

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Popular Journals

Highly Cited Keywords

Clinical Oncology

High Impact Research Keywords

Journal Research Scope

Clinical Oncology

Research Scope

Research Scope

Clinical Oncology

Research Scope

Journal Impact IF Ranking

Clinical Oncology

Journal Impact IF Ranking
Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging Q1 48/288

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging 83%

Oncology Q2 104/340

Oncology 69%

Journal Impact IF Ranking

· In the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging research field, the Quartile of Clinical Oncology is Q1. Clinical Oncology has been ranked #48 over 288 related journals in the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Oncology is around 83% in the field of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging.
· In the Oncology research field, the Quartile of Clinical Oncology is Q2. Clinical Oncology has been ranked #104 over 340 related journals in the Oncology research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Oncology is around 69% in the field of Oncology.

Related Journals

Clinical Oncology

Similar Journals

Clinical Oncology

The 2020-2021 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 4.126, which is just updated in 2021.

Clinical Oncology Impact Factor
Highest IF
4.126
Highest Journal Impact IF

The highest Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 4.126.

Lowest IF
2.072
Lowest Journal Impact IF

The lowest Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 2.072.

Total Growth Rate
99.1%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Clinical Oncology IF is 99.1%.

Annual Growth Rate
9.9%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Clinical Oncology IF is 9.9%.

Journal Impact IF History

Clinical Oncology

Journal Impact IF Trend

Year Journal Impact IF
Year Journal Impact IF
2021-2022 Check our Real-Time Impact Factor and Impact Factor Prediction Results
2020-2021 4.126
2019-2020 3.113
2018-2019 3.047
2017-2018 3.06
2016-2017 3.236
2015-2016 3.212
2014-2015 3.398
2013-2014 2.826
2012-2013 2.858
2011-2012 2.072
Journal Impact IF History

· The 2020-2021 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 4.126
· The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 3.113
· The 2018-2019 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 3.047
· The 2017-2018 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 3.06
· The 2016-2017 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 3.236
· The 2015-2016 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 3.212
· The 2014-2015 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 3.398
· The 2013-2014 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 2.826
· The 2012-2013 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 2.858
· The 2011-2012 Journal Impact IF of Clinical Oncology is 2.072

Clinical Oncology

Journal Key Metrics
Journal Title Clinical Oncology
ISSN 0936-6555
ISSN (Online) 1433-2981
Publisher
W.B. Saunders Ltd
Publication Frequency
-
Coverage
1975, 1984-1985, 1989-2020
Open Access
NO
Language
-
Highest Impact Factor (2011 - 2021) 4.126
Lowest Impact Factor (2011 - 2021) 2.072
Total Impact Factor IF Growth Rate (2011 - 2021) 99.1%
Avarage Impact Factor IF Growth Rate (2011 - 2021) 9.9%
Annual Impact Factor IF Growth Rate (2020 - 2021) 32.5 %
Publication Fee
Homepage
Submit Manuscript

Clinical Oncology

Impact Factor 2021-2022 Prediction
Clinical Oncology Impact Factor Predition System

Clinical Oncology Impact Factor Prediction System is now online. You can start share your valuable insights with the community.

Predict Check All Preditions

What is Impact Factor?

The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly average number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are often deemed to be more important, or carry more intrinsic prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values.

Clinical Oncology | Academic Accelerator - About the Impact Factor

Impact factor is commonly used to evaluate the relative importance of a journal within its field and to measure the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular time period. Journal which publishes more review articles will get highest IFs. Journals with higher IFs believed to be more important than those with lower ones. According to Eugene Garfield “impact simply reflects the ability of the journals and editors to attract the best paper available.” Journal which publishes more review articles will get maximum IFs. The Impact Factor of an academic journal is a scientometric Metric that reflects the yearly average number of citations that recent articles published in a given journal received. It is frequently used as a Metric for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher Impact Factor are often deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The Clinical Oncology Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Clinical Oncology during the two preceding years (2018-2019). Note that 2020 Impact Factor are reported in 2021; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2020 publications have been processed by the indexing agency. New journals, which are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an impact factor after two years of indexing; in this case, the citations to the year prior to Volume 1, and the number of articles published in the year prior to Volume 1, are known zero values. Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until they have been indexed for three years. Occasionally, Journal Citation Reports assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data. The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts, but for new titles one of the known counts is zero. Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes publish no items in a particular year, affecting the count. The impact factor relates to a specific time period; it is possible to calculate it for any desired period. In addition to the 2-year Impact Factor, the 3-year Impact Factor, 4-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Real-Time Impact Factor can provide further insights and factors into the impact of Clinical Oncology.

History

The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Impact factors are calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992, and became known as Thomson ISI. In 2018, Thomson ISI was sold to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia. They founded a new corporation, Clarivate, which is now the publisher of the JCR.

Use

The impact factor is used to compare different journals within a certain field. The Web of Science indexes more than 11,500 science and social science journals. Journal impact factors are often used to evaluate the merit of individual articles and individual researchers. This use of impact factors was summarised by Hoeffel:

Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore, a good technique for scientific evaluation. Experience has shown that in each specialty the best journals are those in which it is most difficult to have an article accepted, and these are the journals that have a high impact factor. Most of these journals existed long before the impact factor was devised. The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is widespread because it fits well with the opinion we have in each field of the best journals in our specialty....In conclusion, prestigious journals publish papers of high level. Therefore, their impact factor is high, and not the contrary.

Eugene Garfield

In brief, Impact factors may be used by:
  • Authors to decide where to submit an article for publication.
  • Libraries to make collection development decisions
  • Academic departments to assess academic productivity
  • Academic departments to make decisions on promotion and tenure.
As impact factors are a journal-level metric, rather than an article- or individual-level metric, this use is controversial. Garfield agrees with Hoeffel,but warns about the "misuse in evaluating individuals" because there is "a wide variation [of citations] from article to article within a single journal". Other things to consider about Impact Factors:
  • Many journals do not have an impact factor.
  • The impact factor cannot assess the quality of individual articles. Even if citations were evenly distributed among articles, the impact factor would only measure the interests of other researchers in an article, not its importance and usefulness.
  • Only research articles, technical notes and reviews are “citable” items. Editorials, letters, news items and meeting abstracts are “non-citable items”.
  • Only a small percentage of articles are highly cited and they are found in a small subset of journals. This small proportion accounts for a large percentage of citations.
  • Controversial papers, such as those based on fraudulent data, may be highly cited, distorting the impact factor of a journal.
  • Citation bias may exist. For example, English language resources may be favoured. Authors may cite their own work.
Moreover, informed and careful use of these impact data is essential, and should be based on a thorough understanding of the methodology used to generate impact factors. There are controversial aspects of using impact factors:
  • It is not clear whether the number of times a paper is cited measures its actual quality.
  • Some databases that calculate impact factors fail to incorporate publications including textbooks, handbooks and reference books.
  • Certain disciplines have low numbers of journals and usage. Therefore, one should only compare journals or researchers within the same discipline.
  • Review articles normally are cited more often and therefore can skew results.
  • Self-citing may also skew results.
  • Some resources used to calculate impact factors have inadequate international coverage.
  • Editorial policies can artificially inflate an impact factor.
Impact factors have often been used in advancement and tenure decision-making. Many recognize that this is a coarse tool for such important decisions, and that a multitude of factors should be taken into account in these deliberations. When considering the use of the impact factor (IF), keep these aspects in mind:
  • IF analysis is limited to citations from the journals indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge. Currently, the Web of Science indexes only 8621 journals across the full breadth of the sciences, and just 3121 in the social sciences.
  • A high IF/citation rate says nothing about the quality -- or even, validity -- of the references being cited. Notorious or even retracted articles often attract a lot of attention, hence a high number of citations. The notority related to the first publication on "cold fusion" is one such example.
  • Journals that publish more "review articles" are often found near the top of the rankings. While not known for publishing new, creative findings, these individual articles tend to be heavily cited.
  • The IF measures the average number of citations to articles in the journal -- given this, a small number of highly-cited articles will skew the figure.
  • It takes several years for new journals to be added to the list of titles indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge, so these newer titles will be under-represented.
  • It's alleged that journal editors have learned to "game" the system, encouraging authors to cite their works previously published in the same journal.
Comparing Journals Across Disciplines? Not a good idea! Using Impact Factors within a given discipline should only be done with great care, as described above. Using impact factor data to compare journals across disciplines is even more problematic. Here are some of the reasons:
  • Disciplines where older literature is still referenced, such as Chemistry and Mathematics, offer challenges to the methodolgy since older citations (older than two years) are not used to calculate the impact factor for a given journal. (Five-year impact factor analysis, which can be calculated using the Journal Citation Index database, helps smooth out this problem only to some degree.)
  • Different disciplines have different practices regarding tendency to cite larger numbers of references. Higher overall citation rates will bump upward impact factor measurements.
  • Where it's common for large numbers of authors to collaborate on a single paper, such as in Physics, the tendency of authors to cite themselves (and in this case, more authors) will result in increased citation rates.

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor

Pros:

  • A vetted, established metric for measuring journal impact within a discipline.
  • Designed to eliminate bias based on journal size and frequency.
Cons:
  • Individual articles makes an uneven contribution to overall Impact Factor.
  • Impact Factor does not account for certain things, things like context (postive or negative citaion) and intentionality (self-citation).
  • The metric is proprietary to and bound by the contents of the Thomson Reuters database.
  • Citations, on which the Impact Factor is based, count for less than 1% of an article's overall use.

Criticism

Numerous critiques have been made regarding the use of impact factors. A 2007 study noted that the most fundamental flaw is that impact factors present the mean of data that are not normally distributed, and suggested that it would be more appropriate to present the median of these data. There is also a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders. Others have made more general criticisms, arguing that emphasis on impact factor results from negative influence of neoliberal policies on academia claiming that what is needed is not just replacement of the impact factor with more sophisticated metrics for science publications but also discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers in higher education.
Experts stress that there are limitations in using impact factors to evaluate a scholar's work. There are many reasons cited for not relying on impact factor alone to evaluate the output of a particular individual. Among these are the following:

  • A single factor is not sufficient for evaluating an author's work.
  • Journal values are meaningless unless compared within the same discipline. Impact factors vary among disciplines.
  • The impact factor was originally devised to show the impact of a specific journal, not a specific scholar. The quality and impact of the author's work may extend beyond the impact of a particular journal.
According to Jim Testa, a researcher for ThomsonReuters Scientific, the most widespread misuse of the Impact Factor is to evaluate the work of an individual author (instead of a journal). "To say that because a researcher is publishing in a certain journal, he or she is more influential or deserves more credit is not necessarily true. There are many other variables to consider." (interview 6/26/2008 in Thomson Reuters blog entry)

Clinical Oncology
Journal Profile

About

Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews. None

ISSN
0936-6555
ISSN

The ISSN of Clinical Oncology is 0936-6555 . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

ISSN (Online)
1433-2981
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Clinical Oncology is 1433-2981 . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

Publisher
W.B. Saunders Ltd
Publisher

Clinical Oncology is published by W.B. Saunders Ltd .

Publication Frequency
-
Publication Frequency

Clinical Oncology publishes reports - .

Coverage
1975, 1984-1985, 1989-2020
Coverage

The Publication History of Clinical Oncology covers 1975, 1984-1985, 1989-2020 .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Publication Fee
Publication Fee

Language
-
Language

The language of Clinical Oncology is - .

Country/Region
United Kingdom
Country/Region

The publisher of Clinical Oncology is W.B. Saunders Ltd , which locates in United Kingdom .

International Collaboration Trend

Clinical Oncology

Cited Documents Trend

Clinical Oncology

Total Publications
6229
Total Citations
75351

Annual Publication Volume

Clinical Oncology

Annual Citation Record

Clinical Oncology

Publications Cites Dataset

Clinical Oncology

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1975 36 7
1976 50 30
1977 43 48
1978 46 60
1979 46 97
1980 45 108
1981 43 129
1982 49 148
1983 48 163
1984 51 203
1985 10 232
1986 0 256
1987 0 241
1988 0 227
1989 28 258
1990 93 280
1991 116 330
1992 135 344
1993 191 300
1994 124 389
1995 149 502
1996 180 570
1997 130 571
1998 137 673
1999 89 824
2000 87 790
2001 116 919
2002 118 986
2003 128 1204
2004 137 1333
2005 149 1659
2006 171 2091
2007 298 2198
2008 165 2700
2009 166 2994
2010 160 3684
2011 296 3828
2012 138 4736
2013 137 4740
2014 200 5196
2015 356 5083
2016 312 4854
2017 339 4998
2018 279 4021
2019 287 4421
2020 299 5515
2021 52 411
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Clinical Oncology has published 36 reports and received 7 citations in 1975.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 50 reports and received 30 citations in 1976.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 43 reports and received 48 citations in 1977.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 46 reports and received 60 citations in 1978.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 46 reports and received 97 citations in 1979.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 45 reports and received 108 citations in 1980.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 43 reports and received 129 citations in 1981.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 49 reports and received 148 citations in 1982.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 48 reports and received 163 citations in 1983.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 51 reports and received 203 citations in 1984.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 10 reports and received 232 citations in 1985.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 0 reports and received 256 citations in 1986.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 0 reports and received 241 citations in 1987.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 0 reports and received 227 citations in 1988.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 28 reports and received 258 citations in 1989.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 93 reports and received 280 citations in 1990.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 116 reports and received 330 citations in 1991.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 135 reports and received 344 citations in 1992.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 191 reports and received 300 citations in 1993.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 124 reports and received 389 citations in 1994.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 149 reports and received 502 citations in 1995.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 180 reports and received 570 citations in 1996.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 130 reports and received 571 citations in 1997.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 137 reports and received 673 citations in 1998.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 89 reports and received 824 citations in 1999.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 87 reports and received 790 citations in 2000.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 116 reports and received 919 citations in 2001.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 118 reports and received 986 citations in 2002.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 128 reports and received 1204 citations in 2003.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 137 reports and received 1333 citations in 2004.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 149 reports and received 1659 citations in 2005.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 171 reports and received 2091 citations in 2006.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 298 reports and received 2198 citations in 2007.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 165 reports and received 2700 citations in 2008.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 166 reports and received 2994 citations in 2009.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 160 reports and received 3684 citations in 2010.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 296 reports and received 3828 citations in 2011.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 138 reports and received 4736 citations in 2012.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 137 reports and received 4740 citations in 2013.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 200 reports and received 5196 citations in 2014.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 356 reports and received 5083 citations in 2015.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 312 reports and received 4854 citations in 2016.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 339 reports and received 4998 citations in 2017.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 279 reports and received 4021 citations in 2018.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 287 reports and received 4421 citations in 2019.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 299 reports and received 5515 citations in 2020.
· The Clinical Oncology has published 52 reports and received 411 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Clinical Oncology is 6229.
· The total citations of Clinical Oncology is 75351.

Share Your Impact Factor Information with Community

Do you know the Latest Impact Factor of Clinical Oncology? Share with the community!

Impact Factor

What is the Latest Impact Factor?

Data Source

Where do you get the information?



Impact Factor Data Source
Impact Factor Data Source
4.126 Baidu

Thanks for sharing your information with us!