The Lancet
Journal Impact IF - Analysis · Trend · Prediction · Ranking


New

Journal Impact IF

2019-2020

60.39

2.2%

Journal Impact IF Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

The Lancet

The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 60.39, which is just updated in 2020.

The Lancet Impact Factor
Highest IF
60.39
Highest Journal Impact IF

The highest Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 60.39.

Lowest IF
38.278
Lowest Journal Impact IF

The lowest Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 38.278.

Total Growth Rate
57.8%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of The Lancet IF is 57.8%.

Annual Growth Rate
6.4%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of The Lancet IF is 6.4%.

Journal Impact IF Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
General Medicine Q1 1/529

General Medicine 99%

Journal Impact IF Ranking

· In the General Medicine research field, the Quartile of The Lancet is Q1. The Lancet has been ranked #1 over 529 related journals in the General Medicine research category. The ranking percentile of The Lancet is around 99% in the field of General Medicine.

The Lancet Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

The Lancet Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
222360
Total Citations
9422537

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 60.39
2018-2019 59.102
2017-2018 53.254
2016-2017 47.831
2015-2016 44.002
2014-2015 45.217
2013-2014 39.207
2012-2013 39.06
2011-2012 38.278
Journal Impact IF History

· The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 60.39
· The 2018-2019 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 59.102
· The 2017-2018 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 53.254
· The 2016-2017 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 47.831
· The 2015-2016 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 44.002
· The 2014-2015 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 45.217
· The 2013-2014 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 39.207
· The 2012-2013 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 39.06
· The 2011-2012 Journal Impact IF of The Lancet is 38.278

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1922 694 320
1923 708 358
1924 751 398
1925 637 426
1926 652 503
1927 742 453
1928 700 676
1929 665 723
1930 690 695
1931 703 892
1932 774 1015
1933 736 934
1934 763 984
1935 828 1144
1936 763 1322
1937 742 1605
1938 722 1963
1939 753 2251
1940 724 1962
1941 644 1520
1942 623 1484
1943 633 1408
1944 695 1516
1945 658 1569
1946 731 1690
1947 811 2233
1948 832 2307
1949 920 2747
1950 873 3227
1951 1164 3128
1952 1179 3797
1953 1091 4345
1954 1226 4397
1955 1292 5291
1956 1182 5377
1957 1362 6217
1958 1367 6958
1959 1289 7852
1960 1612 9575
1961 1662 9999
1962 1684 10913
1963 1810 12515
1964 1998 14701
1965 1973 15860
1966 1927 17269
1967 1994 19195
1968 1957 20268
1969 1779 21941
1970 1954 23322
1971 1914 26253
1972 2158 29440
1973 2607 31272
1974 2949 36843
1975 2862 39515
1976 2763 44730
1977 2311 46773
1978 2341 50594
1979 2233 54019
1980 2186 57942
1981 2219 60719
1982 2217 64878
1983 2237 68913
1984 2279 73177
1985 2261 76609
1986 2183 78701
1987 2378 85197
1988 2349 88476
1989 2442 94484
1990 2377 96574
1991 2501 100338
1992 2540 101480
1993 2944 100986
1994 2821 105296
1995 2873 112809
1996 3430 123410
1997 3623 131852
1998 3688 145304
1999 3842 157901
2000 3495 179501
2001 3236 193654
2002 2819 205219
2003 2473 226312
2004 1951 240625
2005 1601 261716
2006 1669 283312
2007 1610 293900
2008 1560 317522
2009 1469 345920
2010 1525 333874
2011 1487 358370
2012 1736 378514
2013 1956 398167
2014 1741 411160
2015 1923 409593
2016 1869 386770
2017 1825 386176
2018 1536 326410
2019 1680 356069
2020 1419 541799
2021 75 38882
Publications Cites Dataset

· The The Lancet has published 694 reports and received 320 citations in 1922.
· The The Lancet has published 708 reports and received 358 citations in 1923.
· The The Lancet has published 751 reports and received 398 citations in 1924.
· The The Lancet has published 637 reports and received 426 citations in 1925.
· The The Lancet has published 652 reports and received 503 citations in 1926.
· The The Lancet has published 742 reports and received 453 citations in 1927.
· The The Lancet has published 700 reports and received 676 citations in 1928.
· The The Lancet has published 665 reports and received 723 citations in 1929.
· The The Lancet has published 690 reports and received 695 citations in 1930.
· The The Lancet has published 703 reports and received 892 citations in 1931.
· The The Lancet has published 774 reports and received 1015 citations in 1932.
· The The Lancet has published 736 reports and received 934 citations in 1933.
· The The Lancet has published 763 reports and received 984 citations in 1934.
· The The Lancet has published 828 reports and received 1144 citations in 1935.
· The The Lancet has published 763 reports and received 1322 citations in 1936.
· The The Lancet has published 742 reports and received 1605 citations in 1937.
· The The Lancet has published 722 reports and received 1963 citations in 1938.
· The The Lancet has published 753 reports and received 2251 citations in 1939.
· The The Lancet has published 724 reports and received 1962 citations in 1940.
· The The Lancet has published 644 reports and received 1520 citations in 1941.
· The The Lancet has published 623 reports and received 1484 citations in 1942.
· The The Lancet has published 633 reports and received 1408 citations in 1943.
· The The Lancet has published 695 reports and received 1516 citations in 1944.
· The The Lancet has published 658 reports and received 1569 citations in 1945.
· The The Lancet has published 731 reports and received 1690 citations in 1946.
· The The Lancet has published 811 reports and received 2233 citations in 1947.
· The The Lancet has published 832 reports and received 2307 citations in 1948.
· The The Lancet has published 920 reports and received 2747 citations in 1949.
· The The Lancet has published 873 reports and received 3227 citations in 1950.
· The The Lancet has published 1164 reports and received 3128 citations in 1951.
· The The Lancet has published 1179 reports and received 3797 citations in 1952.
· The The Lancet has published 1091 reports and received 4345 citations in 1953.
· The The Lancet has published 1226 reports and received 4397 citations in 1954.
· The The Lancet has published 1292 reports and received 5291 citations in 1955.
· The The Lancet has published 1182 reports and received 5377 citations in 1956.
· The The Lancet has published 1362 reports and received 6217 citations in 1957.
· The The Lancet has published 1367 reports and received 6958 citations in 1958.
· The The Lancet has published 1289 reports and received 7852 citations in 1959.
· The The Lancet has published 1612 reports and received 9575 citations in 1960.
· The The Lancet has published 1662 reports and received 9999 citations in 1961.
· The The Lancet has published 1684 reports and received 10913 citations in 1962.
· The The Lancet has published 1810 reports and received 12515 citations in 1963.
· The The Lancet has published 1998 reports and received 14701 citations in 1964.
· The The Lancet has published 1973 reports and received 15860 citations in 1965.
· The The Lancet has published 1927 reports and received 17269 citations in 1966.
· The The Lancet has published 1994 reports and received 19195 citations in 1967.
· The The Lancet has published 1957 reports and received 20268 citations in 1968.
· The The Lancet has published 1779 reports and received 21941 citations in 1969.
· The The Lancet has published 1954 reports and received 23322 citations in 1970.
· The The Lancet has published 1914 reports and received 26253 citations in 1971.
· The The Lancet has published 2158 reports and received 29440 citations in 1972.
· The The Lancet has published 2607 reports and received 31272 citations in 1973.
· The The Lancet has published 2949 reports and received 36843 citations in 1974.
· The The Lancet has published 2862 reports and received 39515 citations in 1975.
· The The Lancet has published 2763 reports and received 44730 citations in 1976.
· The The Lancet has published 2311 reports and received 46773 citations in 1977.
· The The Lancet has published 2341 reports and received 50594 citations in 1978.
· The The Lancet has published 2233 reports and received 54019 citations in 1979.
· The The Lancet has published 2186 reports and received 57942 citations in 1980.
· The The Lancet has published 2219 reports and received 60719 citations in 1981.
· The The Lancet has published 2217 reports and received 64878 citations in 1982.
· The The Lancet has published 2237 reports and received 68913 citations in 1983.
· The The Lancet has published 2279 reports and received 73177 citations in 1984.
· The The Lancet has published 2261 reports and received 76609 citations in 1985.
· The The Lancet has published 2183 reports and received 78701 citations in 1986.
· The The Lancet has published 2378 reports and received 85197 citations in 1987.
· The The Lancet has published 2349 reports and received 88476 citations in 1988.
· The The Lancet has published 2442 reports and received 94484 citations in 1989.
· The The Lancet has published 2377 reports and received 96574 citations in 1990.
· The The Lancet has published 2501 reports and received 100338 citations in 1991.
· The The Lancet has published 2540 reports and received 101480 citations in 1992.
· The The Lancet has published 2944 reports and received 100986 citations in 1993.
· The The Lancet has published 2821 reports and received 105296 citations in 1994.
· The The Lancet has published 2873 reports and received 112809 citations in 1995.
· The The Lancet has published 3430 reports and received 123410 citations in 1996.
· The The Lancet has published 3623 reports and received 131852 citations in 1997.
· The The Lancet has published 3688 reports and received 145304 citations in 1998.
· The The Lancet has published 3842 reports and received 157901 citations in 1999.
· The The Lancet has published 3495 reports and received 179501 citations in 2000.
· The The Lancet has published 3236 reports and received 193654 citations in 2001.
· The The Lancet has published 2819 reports and received 205219 citations in 2002.
· The The Lancet has published 2473 reports and received 226312 citations in 2003.
· The The Lancet has published 1951 reports and received 240625 citations in 2004.
· The The Lancet has published 1601 reports and received 261716 citations in 2005.
· The The Lancet has published 1669 reports and received 283312 citations in 2006.
· The The Lancet has published 1610 reports and received 293900 citations in 2007.
· The The Lancet has published 1560 reports and received 317522 citations in 2008.
· The The Lancet has published 1469 reports and received 345920 citations in 2009.
· The The Lancet has published 1525 reports and received 333874 citations in 2010.
· The The Lancet has published 1487 reports and received 358370 citations in 2011.
· The The Lancet has published 1736 reports and received 378514 citations in 2012.
· The The Lancet has published 1956 reports and received 398167 citations in 2013.
· The The Lancet has published 1741 reports and received 411160 citations in 2014.
· The The Lancet has published 1923 reports and received 409593 citations in 2015.
· The The Lancet has published 1869 reports and received 386770 citations in 2016.
· The The Lancet has published 1825 reports and received 386176 citations in 2017.
· The The Lancet has published 1536 reports and received 326410 citations in 2018.
· The The Lancet has published 1680 reports and received 356069 citations in 2019.
· The The Lancet has published 1419 reports and received 541799 citations in 2020.
· The The Lancet has published 75 reports and received 38882 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of The Lancet is 222360.
· The total citations of The Lancet is 9422537.

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.

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

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)

The Lancet
Journal Profile

About

The Lancet is an international general medical journal that will consider any original contribution that advances or illuminates medical science or practice, or that educates or entertains the journal’s readers. Whatever you have written, remember that it is the general reader whom you are trying to reach. One way to find out if you have succeeded is to show your draft to colleagues in other specialties.If they do not understand, neither, very probably, will The Lancet’s staff or readers. Manuscripts must be solely the work of the author(s) stated, must not have been previously published elsewhere, and must not be under consideration by another journal. The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals. It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, an English surgeon who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet (scalpel), as well as after the architectural term lancet window, a window with a sharp pointed arch, to indicate the light of wisdom or to let in light.

Highly Cited Keywords

ISSN
0140-6736
ISSN

The ISSN of The Lancet is 0140-6736 . 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)
1474-547X
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of The Lancet is 1474-547X . 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
Elsevier Ltd.
Publisher

The Lancet is published by Elsevier Ltd. .

Publication Frequency
Weekly
Publication Frequency

The Lancet publishes reports Weekly .

Coverage
1823 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of The Lancet covers 1823 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

The Lancet is Subscription-based (non-OA) Journal. Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles should pay by individual or institution to access the articles. Anyone who wants to use the articles in any way must obtain permission from the publishers.

Publication Fee
Publication Fee

There is no publication fee for submiting manuscript to The Lancet. The Lancet is Subscription-based (non-OA) Journal. Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles should pay by individual or institution to access the articles.

Language
English
Language

The language of The Lancet is English .

Country/Region
United Kingdom
Country/Region

The publisher of The Lancet is Elsevier Ltd. , which locates in United Kingdom .

Selected Articles

Full Title Authors
Full Title Authors
Hypothyroidism and hypertension: fact or myth? – Authors' reply - 2018 Layal Chaker · Antonio C. Bianco · Jacqueline Jonklaas · Robin P. Peeters
Cannabidiol in patients with seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (GWPCARE4): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial - 2018 Elizabeth A. Thiele · Eric D. Marsh · Jacqueline A French · Maria Mazurkiewicz-Bełdzińska · Selim R Benbadis · Charuta Joshi · Paul D. Lyons · Adam Taylor · Claire Roberts · Kenneth W. Sommerville · Boudewjin Gunning · Jacek Gawlowicz · Pawel Lisewski · Maria Mazurkiewicz Beldzinska · Krystyna Mitosek Szewczyk · Barbara Steinborn · Marta Zolnowska · Elaine Hughes · Ailsa McLellan · Selim R. Benbadis · Michael A. Ciliberto · Gary G. Clark · Dennis J. Dlugos · Francis M. Filloux · Robert Flamini · Jacqueline A. French · Michael Frost · Sheryl R. Haut · Siddarth Kapoor · Sudha Kilaru Kessler
Personalised perioperative care by e-health after intermediate-grade abdominal surgery : a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial - 2018 Eva van der Meij · Johannes R. Anema · Wouter K.G. Leclercq · Marlies Y. Bongers · Esther C. J. Consten · Steven E. Schraffordt Koops · Peter M van de Ven · Caroline B. Terwee · Johanna M. van Dongen · Frederieke G. Schaafsma · W.J.H.J. Meijerink · Hendrik J. Bonjer · Judith A.F. Huirne
Dysfunction of NaV1.4, a skeletal muscle voltage-gated sodium channel, in sudden infant death syndrome: a case-control study - 2018 Roope Männikkö · Leonie C.H. Wong · David J. Tester · Michael G. Thor · R. Sud · Dimitri M. Kullmann · Mary G. Sweeney · Costin Leu · Sanjay M. Sisodiya · David Fitzpatrick · Margaret Evans · Iona Jeffrey · Jacob Tfelt-Hansen · Marta C. Cohen · Peter J Fleming · Amie Jaye · Michael A. Simpson · Michael J. Ackerman · Michael G. Hanna · Elijah R. Behr · E. Matthews
Time for a new obesity narrative - 2018 Johanna Ralston · Hannah Brinsden · Kent Buse · Vanessa Candeias · Ian D. Caterson · Trevor Hassell · Shiriki Kumanyika · Patricia Nece · Sania Nishtar · Ian Patton · Joseph Proietto · Ximena Ramos Salas · Srinath Reddy · Donna H. Ryan · Arya M. Sharma · Boyd Swinburn · John Wilding · Euan Woodward
Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial - 2018 Dipen J. Parekh · Isildinha M. Reis · Erik P. Castle · Mark L. Gonzalgo · Michael Woods · Robert S. Svatek · Alon Z. Weizer · Badrinath R. Konety · Mathew Tollefson · Tracey L. Krupski · Norm D. Smith · Ahmad Shabsigh · Daniel A. Barocas · Marcus L. Quek · Atreya Dash · Adam S. Kibel · Lynn Shemanski · Raj S. Pruthi · Jeffrey S. Montgomery · Christopher J. Weight · David S. Sharp · Sam S. Chang · Michael S. Cookson · Gopal N. Gupta · Alex Gorbonos · Edward Uchio · Eila C. Skinner · Vivek Venkatramani · Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash · Kerri Kendrick