Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
عامل التأثير - التحليلات · اتجاه · تصنيف · تصنيف


New

عامل التأثير

2019-2020

5.541

-8.1 %

عامل التأثير Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

The 2019-2020 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 5.541, which is just updated in 2020.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor
Highest IF
6.028
Highest عامل التأثير

The highest عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 6.028.

Lowest IF
1.6
Lowest عامل التأثير

The lowest عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 1.6.

Total Growth Rate
89.6%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice IF is 89.6%.

Annual Growth Rate
10.0%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice IF is 10.0%.

عامل التأثير Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Clinical Psychology Q1 5/275

Clinical Psychology 98%

عامل التأثير Ranking

· In the Clinical Psychology research field, the Quartile of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is Q1. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has been ranked #5 over 275 related journals in the Clinical Psychology research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is around 98% in the field of Clinical Psychology.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor Predition System

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor Prediction System is now online. You can start share your valuable insights with the community.

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
1195
Total Citations
102040

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

عامل التأثير History

Year عامل التأثير
Year عامل التأثير
2019-2020 5.541
2018-2019 6.028
2017-2018 4.95
2016-2017 2.38
2015-2016 2.113
2014-2015 1.6
2013-2014 3.245
2012-2013 4.4
2011-2012 2.922
عامل التأثير History

· The 2019-2020 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 5.541
· The 2018-2019 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 6.028
· The 2017-2018 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 4.95
· The 2016-2017 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 2.38
· The 2015-2016 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 2.113
· The 2014-2015 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 1.6
· The 2013-2014 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 3.245
· The 2012-2013 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 4.4
· The 2011-2012 عامل التأثير of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 2.922

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1994 19 11
1995 29 81
1996 39 233
1997 33 303
1998 42 508
1999 29 548
2000 4 800
2001 4 1017
2002 11 1270
2003 12 1468
2004 0 1972
2005 4 2691
2006 380 3745
2007 47 3658
2008 43 4108
2009 50 4924
2010 39 5096
2011 43 5789
2012 33 6404
2013 36 7370
2014 30 7389
2015 37 7820
2016 44 7048
2017 35 7013
2018 45 5540
2019 30 6551
2020 77 8137
2021 0 546
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 19 reports and received 11 citations in 1994.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 29 reports and received 81 citations in 1995.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 39 reports and received 233 citations in 1996.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 33 reports and received 303 citations in 1997.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 42 reports and received 508 citations in 1998.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 29 reports and received 548 citations in 1999.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 4 reports and received 800 citations in 2000.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 4 reports and received 1017 citations in 2001.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 11 reports and received 1270 citations in 2002.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 12 reports and received 1468 citations in 2003.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 0 reports and received 1972 citations in 2004.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 4 reports and received 2691 citations in 2005.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 380 reports and received 3745 citations in 2006.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 47 reports and received 3658 citations in 2007.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 43 reports and received 4108 citations in 2008.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 50 reports and received 4924 citations in 2009.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 39 reports and received 5096 citations in 2010.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 43 reports and received 5789 citations in 2011.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 33 reports and received 6404 citations in 2012.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 36 reports and received 7370 citations in 2013.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 30 reports and received 7389 citations in 2014.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 37 reports and received 7820 citations in 2015.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 44 reports and received 7048 citations in 2016.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 35 reports and received 7013 citations in 2017.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 45 reports and received 5540 citations in 2018.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 30 reports and received 6551 citations in 2019.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 77 reports and received 8137 citations in 2020.
· The Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice has published 0 reports and received 546 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 1195.
· The total citations of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 102040.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Journal Profile
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal

About

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice presents cutting-edge developments in the science and practice of clinical psychology and related mental health fields by publishing scholarly articles, primarily involving narrative and systematic reviews as well as meta-analyses related to assessment, intervention, and service delivery. The journal also publishes invited Commentaries that provide additional perspectives regarding the topics of such reviews. It is the official publication of APA Division 12, the Society of Clinical Psychology. The journal publishes papers from all theoretical perspectives in clinical psychology and considers all methods and approaches to research. Manuscripts covering theory, psychopathology, assessment, psychotherapy, process research, outcome research, professional issues, service delivery, education and training, related ethical issues, and similar topics are appropriate for the Journal. Occasionally, empirical papers primarily concerned with broad education and/or clinical research are published, if directly related to the Society's mission and projects. Theoretical/clinical descriptions without a sound empirical basis are not appropriate for the journal. Manuscripts are expected to end with a clear summary of what is known on the topic, as well as a section on the concrete and practical application of that knowledge in clinical practice. The Journal is always seeking suggestions for special issues or sections that contain articles related to a similar topic. None

ISSN
0969-5893
ISSN

The ISSN of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 0969-5893 . 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)
1468-2850
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is 1468-2850 . 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
Wiley-Blackwell
Publisher

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is published by Wiley-Blackwell .

Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Publication Frequency

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice publishes reports Quarterly .

Coverage
1994 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice covers 1994 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 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
Review
Publication Fee

There is no publication fee for submiting manuscript to Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 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 Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is English .

Country/Region
United States
Country/Region

The publisher of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is Wiley-Blackwell , which locates in United States .

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 Psychology: Science and Practice | 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 Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 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 Psychology: Science and Practice.

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)