Journal of Clinical Densitometry
I-faktoren - Analyse · Trend · Forudsigelse · Ranking


Ny

I-faktoren

2019-2020

2.31

5.8%

I-faktoren Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Journal of Clinical Densitometry

The 2019-2020 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 2.31, which is just updated in 2020.

Journal of Clinical Densitometry Impact Factor
Highest IF
3.24
Highest I-faktoren

The highest I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 3.24.

Lowest IF
1.295
Lowest I-faktoren

The lowest I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 1.295.

Total Growth Rate
78.4%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Journal of Clinical Densitometry IF is 78.4%.

Annual Growth Rate
8.7%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Journal of Clinical Densitometry IF is 8.7%.

I-faktoren Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging Q2 82/284

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging 71%

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Q1 52/261

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine 80%

Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Q2 102/217

Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism 53%

I-faktoren Ranking

· In the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging research field, the Quartile of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is Q2. Journal of Clinical Densitometry has been ranked #82 over 284 related journals in the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging research category. The ranking percentile of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is around 71% in the field of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging.
· In the Orthopedics and Sports Medicine research field, the Quartile of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is Q1. Journal of Clinical Densitometry has been ranked #52 over 261 related journals in the Orthopedics and Sports Medicine research category. The ranking percentile of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is around 80% in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine.
· In the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism research field, the Quartile of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is Q2. Journal of Clinical Densitometry has been ranked #102 over 217 related journals in the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism research category. The ranking percentile of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is around 53% in the field of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism.

Journal of Clinical Densitometry Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Journal of Clinical Densitometry Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
2556
Total Citations
36257

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

I-faktoren History

Year I-faktoren
Year I-faktoren
2019-2020 2.31
2018-2019 2.184
2017-2018 3.015
2016-2017 3.24
2015-2016 2.644
2014-2015 2.027
2013-2014 1.603
2012-2013 1.713
2011-2012 1.295
I-faktoren History

· The 2019-2020 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 2.31
· The 2018-2019 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 2.184
· The 2017-2018 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 3.015
· The 2016-2017 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 3.24
· The 2015-2016 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 2.644
· The 2014-2015 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 2.027
· The 2013-2014 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 1.603
· The 2012-2013 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 1.713
· The 2011-2012 I-faktoren of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 1.295

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1997 0 1
1998 55 16
1999 58 62
2000 52 223
2001 53 374
2002 57 484
2003 52 691
2004 60 949
2005 65 1087
2006 174 1358
2007 144 1376
2008 132 1556
2009 259 1645
2010 142 1789
2011 120 1756
2012 138 2132
2013 125 2448
2014 181 2408
2015 138 2380
2016 134 2667
2017 115 2764
2018 101 2212
2019 57 2377
2020 122 3219
2021 22 283
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 0 reports and received 1 citations in 1997.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 55 reports and received 16 citations in 1998.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 58 reports and received 62 citations in 1999.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 52 reports and received 223 citations in 2000.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 53 reports and received 374 citations in 2001.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 57 reports and received 484 citations in 2002.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 52 reports and received 691 citations in 2003.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 60 reports and received 949 citations in 2004.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 65 reports and received 1087 citations in 2005.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 174 reports and received 1358 citations in 2006.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 144 reports and received 1376 citations in 2007.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 132 reports and received 1556 citations in 2008.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 259 reports and received 1645 citations in 2009.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 142 reports and received 1789 citations in 2010.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 120 reports and received 1756 citations in 2011.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 138 reports and received 2132 citations in 2012.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 125 reports and received 2448 citations in 2013.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 181 reports and received 2408 citations in 2014.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 138 reports and received 2380 citations in 2015.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 134 reports and received 2667 citations in 2016.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 115 reports and received 2764 citations in 2017.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 101 reports and received 2212 citations in 2018.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 57 reports and received 2377 citations in 2019.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 122 reports and received 3219 citations in 2020.
· The Journal of Clinical Densitometry has published 22 reports and received 283 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 2556.
· The total citations of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 36257.

Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Journal Profile
Journal of Clinical Densitometry | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal

About

The Journal is committed to serving ISCD's mission - the education of heterogenous physician specialties and technologists who are involved in the clinical assessment of skeletal health. The focus of JCD is bone mass measurement, including epidemiology of bone mass, how drugs and diseases alter bone mass, new techniques and quality assurance in bone mass imaging technologies, and bone mass health/economics.Combining high quality research and review articles with sound, practice-oriented advice, JCD meets the diverse diagnostic and management needs of radiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, rheumatologists, gynecologists, family physicians, internists, and technologists whose patients require diagnostic clinical densitometry for therapeutic management. None

ISSN
1094-6950
ISSN

The ISSN of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 1094-6950 . 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)
1559-0747
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is 1559-0747 . 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 Inc.
Publisher

Journal of Clinical Densitometry is published by Elsevier Inc. .

Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Publication Frequency

Journal of Clinical Densitometry publishes reports Quarterly .

Coverage
1998 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of Journal of Clinical Densitometry covers 1998 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Journal of Clinical Densitometry 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 Journal of Clinical Densitometry. Journal of Clinical Densitometry 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 Journal of Clinical Densitometry is English .

Country/Region
United States
Country/Region

The publisher of Journal of Clinical Densitometry is Elsevier Inc. , 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.

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

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)