Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience
Journal Impact IF - Analysis · Trend · Prediction · Ranking


New

Journal Impact IF

2019-2020

5.397

10.9%

Journal Impact IF Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience

The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 5.397, which is just updated in 2020.

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience Impact Factor
Highest IF
5.397
Highest Journal Impact IF

The highest Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 5.397.

Lowest IF
3.671
Lowest Journal Impact IF

The lowest Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 3.671.

Total Growth Rate
36.4%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience IF is 36.4%.

Annual Growth Rate
4.0%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience IF is 4.0%.

Journal Impact IF Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1 27/506

Psychiatry and Mental Health 94%

Biological Psychiatry Q1 5/38

Biological Psychiatry 88%

Journal Impact IF Ranking

· In the Psychiatry and Mental Health research field, the Quartile of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is Q1. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has been ranked #27 over 506 related journals in the Psychiatry and Mental Health research category. The ranking percentile of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is around 94% in the field of Psychiatry and Mental Health.
· In the Biological Psychiatry research field, the Quartile of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is Q1. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has been ranked #5 over 38 related journals in the Biological Psychiatry research category. The ranking percentile of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is around 88% in the field of Biological Psychiatry.

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
849
Total Citations
47307

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

Journal Impact IF History

Year Journal Impact IF
Year Journal Impact IF
2019-2020 5.397
2018-2019 4.867
2017-2018 3.671
2016-2017 3.976
2015-2016 5.37
2014-2015 4.756
2013-2014 5.392
2012-2013 4.253
2011-2012 3.956
Journal Impact IF History

· The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 5.397
· The 2018-2019 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 4.867
· The 2017-2018 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 3.671
· The 2016-2017 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 3.976
· The 2015-2016 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 5.37
· The 2014-2015 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 4.756
· The 2013-2014 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 5.392
· The 2012-2013 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 4.253
· The 2011-2012 Journal Impact IF of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 3.956

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1999 20 3
2000 38 16
2001 28 27
2002 41 73
2003 34 53
2004 35 75
2005 30 83
2006 44 202
2007 39 414
2008 46 714
2009 43 958
2010 46 1259
2011 42 1727
2012 41 2242
2013 43 2973
2014 46 3588
2015 44 4214
2016 42 4580
2017 40 4990
2018 34 4684
2019 42 5868
2020 31 7797
2021 0 767
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 20 reports and received 3 citations in 1999.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 38 reports and received 16 citations in 2000.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 28 reports and received 27 citations in 2001.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 41 reports and received 73 citations in 2002.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 34 reports and received 53 citations in 2003.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 35 reports and received 75 citations in 2004.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 30 reports and received 83 citations in 2005.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 44 reports and received 202 citations in 2006.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 39 reports and received 414 citations in 2007.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 46 reports and received 714 citations in 2008.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 43 reports and received 958 citations in 2009.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 46 reports and received 1259 citations in 2010.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 42 reports and received 1727 citations in 2011.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 41 reports and received 2242 citations in 2012.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 43 reports and received 2973 citations in 2013.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 46 reports and received 3588 citations in 2014.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 44 reports and received 4214 citations in 2015.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 42 reports and received 4580 citations in 2016.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 40 reports and received 4990 citations in 2017.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 34 reports and received 4684 citations in 2018.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 42 reports and received 5868 citations in 2019.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 31 reports and received 7797 citations in 2020.
· The Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience has published 0 reports and received 767 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 849.
· The total citations of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 47307.

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.

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience | 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 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 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 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience.

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)

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience
Journal Profile

About

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is a quarterly publication that aims to serve as an interface between clinical neuropsychiatry and the neurosciences by providing state-of-the-art information and original insights into relevant clinical, biological, and therapeutic aspects. Each issue addresses a specific topic, and authors are invited by the Editorial Board. All contributions are reviewed by members of the Editorial Board and submitted to expert consultants for peer review. None

Highly Cited Keywords

ISSN
1294-8322
ISSN

The ISSN of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 1294-8322 . 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)
1958-5969
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is 1958-5969 . 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
Servier International
Publisher

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is published by Servier International .

Publication Frequency
-
Publication Frequency

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience publishes reports - .

Coverage
2002-2019
Coverage

The Publication History of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience covers 2002-2019 .

Open Access
YES
Open Access

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is an Open Access (OA) Journal. Open Access stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse. With Open Access, researchers can read and build on the findings of others without restriction. Much scientific and medical research is paid for with public funds. Open Access allows taxpayers to see the results of their investment.

Publication Fee
Publication Fee

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is an Open Access (OA) Journal. Open Access stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse. With Open Access, researchers can read and build on the findings of others without restriction. Open Access allows taxpayers to see the results of their investment. Please share or review the publication fee with the community.

Language
-
Language

The language of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is - .

Country/Region
France
Country/Region

The publisher of Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience is Servier International , which locates in France .

Selected Articles

Full Title Authors
Full Title Authors
Brain and behavior development in autism from birth through infancy Katya B. Rubinow · David R. Rubinow · David R. Rubinow
Immunological aspects of the treatment of depression and schizophrenia Mark D. Shen · Joseph Piven · Joseph Piven
Addictive behaviors: where do we stand, and where are we going? Norbert Müller · Norbert Müller
Translating genetic and preclinical findings into autism therapies Florence Thibaut · Margret R. Hoehe · Margret R. Hoehe
Oxytocin and social functioning Maria H. Chahrour · Robin J. Kleiman · M. Chiara Manzini · M. Chiara Manzini
Epidemiology of anxiety disorders: From surveys to nosology and back Candace Jones · Ingrid Barrera · Robert H. Ring · Claes Wahlestedt · Claes Wahlestedt
Environmental transmission of generalized anxiety disorder from parents to children: Worries, experiential avoidance, and intolerance of uncertainty Dan J. Stein · Kate M. Scott · Peter de Jonge · Ronald C. Kessler · Ronald C. Kessler
Treatment of opioid dependence with buprenorphine: current update Evin Aktar · Milica Nikolić · Susan M. Bögels · Susan M. Bögels
A multispecies approach for understanding neuroimmune mechanisms of stress J. David Sweatt · Carol A. Tamminga · Carol A. Tamminga
Pharmacotherapy of emotional and behavioral symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorder in children and adolescents Margaret M. McCarthy · Margaret M. McCarthy
Sexuality in autism: hypersexual and paraphilic behavior in women and men with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder Ekaterina Stepanova · Susannah Dowling · Molly Phelps · Robert L. Findling · Robert L. Findling
Clinical and autoimmune features of a patient with autism spectrum disorder seropositive for anti-NMDA-receptor autoantibody Deak T · Kudinova A · Lovelock Df · Gibb Be · Hennessy Mb · Hennessy Mb
Genomic sequencing in clinical practice: applications, challenges, and opportunities Kathinka Evers · Kathinka Evers
Issues and developments related to assessing function in serious mental illness Emily S. Finn · R. Todd Constable · R. Todd Constable
Individual variation in functional brain connectivity: implications for personalized approaches to psychiatric disease Anna C. Need · David B. Goldstein · David B. Goldstein
Neuropsychiatric genomics in precision medicine: diagnostics, gene discovery, and translation Joel B. Krier · Sarah S. Kalia · Robert C. Green · Robert C. Green
Sex differences in addiction Daniel Schöttle · Peer Briken · Oliver Tüscher · Daniel Turner · Daniel Turner
Neurotechnological assessment of consciousness disorders: five ethical imperatives S. M. Reza Soroushmehr · Kayvan Najarian · Kayvan Najarian
Transforming big data into computational models for personalized medicine and health care Seenae Eum · Adam Lee · Jeffrey R. Bishop · Jeffrey R. Bishop
Pharmacogenetic tests for antipsychotic medications: clinical implications and considerations Marrocco J · McEwen Bs · McEwen Bs
Sex in the brain: hormones and sex differences Jill B. Becker · Jill B. Becker
From basic research to personalized medicine Hans Lehrach · Hans Lehrach
Sex differences in the developing brain as a source of inherent risk Michael Soyka · Michael Soyka
Omics approaches to individual variation: modeling networks and the virtual patient Matt Brown · Dawn I. Velligan · Dawn I. Velligan
Huntington disease: a single-gene degenerative disorder of the striatum Peggy C. Nopoulos · Peggy C. Nopoulos
Corticostriatal circuitry in regulating diseases characterized by intrusive thinking Benjamin C. Kalivas · Peter W. Kalivas · Peter W. Kalivas
Functional assessment in mental health: lessons from occupational therapy Johanna Schröder · Thomas Berger · Stefan Westermann · Jan Philipp Klein · Steffen Moritz · Steffen Moritz
Optogenetic approaches to evaluate striatal function in animal models of Parkinson disease Krystal L. Parker · Young Cho Kim · Stephanie L. Alberico · Eric B. Emmons · Nandakumar S. Narayanan · Nandakumar S. Narayanan
Striatal dopamine, reward, and decision making in schizophrenia Lorenz Deserno · Lorenz Deserno · Lorenz Deserno · Florian Schlagenhauf · Florian Schlagenhauf · Andreas Heinz · Andreas Heinz
Dopamine reward prediction error coding Wolfram Schultz · Wolfram Schultz
Basal ganglia play a crucial role in decision making Florence Thibaut · Florence Thibaut
A review of behavioral tailoring strategies for improving medication adherence in serious mental illness Julie Kreyenbuhl · Elizabeth J. Record · Jessica Palmer-Bacon · Jessica Palmer-Bacon
The emerging story of emerging technologies in neuropsychiatry M. Justin Coffey · C. Edward Coffey · C. Edward Coffey
Contributions of mobile technologies to addiction research Joel Swendsen · Joel Swendsen
Prevention of suicidal behavior Joan C. Rogers · Margo B. Holm · Margo B. Holm
Internet interventions for depression: new developments Colin A. Depp · Raeanne C. Moore · Dimitri Perivoliotis · Eric Granholm · Eric Granholm
Human iPSC-derived neurons and lymphoblastoid cells for personalized medicine research in neuropsychiatric disorders Gréa H · Scheid I · Gaman A · Rogemond · Gillet S · Honnorat J · Bolognani F · Czech C · Bouquet C · Toledano E · Bouvard M · Delorme R · Groc L · Marion Leboyer · Marion Leboyer
Technology to assess and support self-management in serious mental illness Florence Thibaut · Florence Thibaut
Digital applications: the future in psychiatry? Patricia A Areàn · Kien Hoa Ly · Gerhard Andersson · Gerhard Andersson
Mobile technology for mental health assessment Angela Sirigu · Jean-René Duhamel · Jean-René Duhamel
Reward and decision processes in the brains of humans and nonhuman primates Georg Juckel · Georg Juckel
Inhibition of the reward system by antipsychotic treatment Julie Goulet-Kennedy · Sara Labbe · Shirley Fecteau · Shirley Fecteau
The involvement of the striatum in decision making Chin B. Eap · Chin B. Eap
Personalized prescribing: a new medical model for clinical implementation of psychotropic drugs Jill M. Goldstein · Laura M. Holsen · Grace Huang · Bradley D. Hammond · Bradley D. Hammond · Tamarra James-Todd · Sara Cherkerzian · Taben M. Hale · Robert J. Handa · Robert J. Handa
Prenatal stress-immune programming of sex differences in comorbidity of depression and obesity/metabolic syndrome David Gurwitz · David Gurwitz
An epigenomics approach to individual differences and its translation to neuropsychiatric conditions Florence Thibaut · Florence Thibaut

Oxytocin and social functioning
Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience | 2017
Maria H. Chahrour · Robin J. Kleiman · M. Chiara Manzini · M. Chiara Manzini