Neuromuscular Disorders
Impactfactor - Analyse · Trend · Ranglijst · Voorspelling


Nieuw

Impactfactor

2019-2020

3.115

19.3%

Impactfactor Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Neuromuscular Disorders

The 2019-2020 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 3.115, which is just updated in 2020.

Neuromuscular Disorders Impact Factor
Highest IF
3.464
Highest Impactfactor

The highest Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 3.464.

Lowest IF
2.487
Lowest Impactfactor

The lowest Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 2.487.

Total Growth Rate
11.4%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Neuromuscular Disorders IF is 11.4%.

Annual Growth Rate
1.3%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Neuromuscular Disorders IF is 1.3%.

Impactfactor Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Genetics (clinical) Q2 44/90

Genetics (clinical) 51%

Neurology (clinical) Q2 107/348

Neurology (clinical) 69%

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health Q1 38/286

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health 86%

Neurology Q2 61/155

Neurology 60%

Impactfactor Ranking

· In the Genetics (clinical) research field, the Quartile of Neuromuscular Disorders is Q2. Neuromuscular Disorders has been ranked #44 over 90 related journals in the Genetics (clinical) research category. The ranking percentile of Neuromuscular Disorders is around 51% in the field of Genetics (clinical).
· In the Neurology (clinical) research field, the Quartile of Neuromuscular Disorders is Q2. Neuromuscular Disorders has been ranked #107 over 348 related journals in the Neurology (clinical) research category. The ranking percentile of Neuromuscular Disorders is around 69% in the field of Neurology (clinical).
· In the Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health research field, the Quartile of Neuromuscular Disorders is Q1. Neuromuscular Disorders has been ranked #38 over 286 related journals in the Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health research category. The ranking percentile of Neuromuscular Disorders is around 86% in the field of Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health.
· In the Neurology research field, the Quartile of Neuromuscular Disorders is Q2. Neuromuscular Disorders has been ranked #61 over 155 related journals in the Neurology research category. The ranking percentile of Neuromuscular Disorders is around 60% in the field of Neurology.

Neuromuscular Disorders Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Neuromuscular Disorders Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
10493
Total Citations
115438

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

Impactfactor History

Year Impactfactor
Year Impactfactor
2019-2020 3.115
2018-2019 2.612
2017-2018 2.487
2016-2017 2.969
2015-2016 3.107
2014-2015 2.638
2013-2014 3.134
2012-2013 3.464
2011-2012 2.797
Impactfactor History

· The 2019-2020 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 3.115
· The 2018-2019 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 2.612
· The 2017-2018 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 2.487
· The 2016-2017 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 2.969
· The 2015-2016 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 3.107
· The 2014-2015 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 2.638
· The 2013-2014 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 3.134
· The 2012-2013 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 3.464
· The 2011-2012 Impactfactor of Neuromuscular Disorders is 2.797

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1982 0 1
1991 88 18
1992 75 144
1993 114 279
1994 187 418
1995 86 665
1996 365 853
1997 307 965
1998 75 1342
1999 86 1662
2000 104 1809
2001 121 1893
2002 188 2410
2003 121 2753
2004 144 2803
2005 142 3455
2006 386 3696
2007 579 4051
2008 501 4751
2009 500 4703
2010 502 5593
2011 581 6134
2012 609 6801
2013 496 7240
2014 682 7202
2015 613 8343
2016 588 6667
2017 872 7014
2018 389 6455
2019 694 6361
2020 281 8349
2021 17 608
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 0 reports and received 1 citations in 1982.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 88 reports and received 18 citations in 1991.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 75 reports and received 144 citations in 1992.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 114 reports and received 279 citations in 1993.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 187 reports and received 418 citations in 1994.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 86 reports and received 665 citations in 1995.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 365 reports and received 853 citations in 1996.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 307 reports and received 965 citations in 1997.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 75 reports and received 1342 citations in 1998.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 86 reports and received 1662 citations in 1999.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 104 reports and received 1809 citations in 2000.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 121 reports and received 1893 citations in 2001.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 188 reports and received 2410 citations in 2002.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 121 reports and received 2753 citations in 2003.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 144 reports and received 2803 citations in 2004.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 142 reports and received 3455 citations in 2005.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 386 reports and received 3696 citations in 2006.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 579 reports and received 4051 citations in 2007.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 501 reports and received 4751 citations in 2008.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 500 reports and received 4703 citations in 2009.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 502 reports and received 5593 citations in 2010.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 581 reports and received 6134 citations in 2011.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 609 reports and received 6801 citations in 2012.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 496 reports and received 7240 citations in 2013.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 682 reports and received 7202 citations in 2014.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 613 reports and received 8343 citations in 2015.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 588 reports and received 6667 citations in 2016.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 872 reports and received 7014 citations in 2017.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 389 reports and received 6455 citations in 2018.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 694 reports and received 6361 citations in 2019.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 281 reports and received 8349 citations in 2020.
· The Neuromuscular Disorders has published 17 reports and received 608 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Neuromuscular Disorders is 10493.
· The total citations of Neuromuscular Disorders is 115438.

Neuromuscular Disorders
Journal Profile
Neuromuscular Disorders | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal

About

This international, multidisciplinary journal covers all aspects of neuromuscular disorders in childhood and adult life (including the muscular dystrophies, spinal muscular atrophies, hereditary neuropathies, congenital myopathies, myasthenias, myotonic syndromes, metabolic myopathies and inflammatory myopathies).The Editors welcome original articles from all areas of the field:• Clinical aspects, such as new clinical entities, case studies of interest, treatment, management and rehabilitation (including biomechanics, orthotic design and surgery).• Basic scientific studies of relevance to the clinical syndromes, including advances in the fields of molecular biology and genetics.• Studies of animal models relevant to the human diseases.The journal is aimed at a wide range of clinicians, pathologists, associated paramedical professionals and clinical and basic scientists with an interest in the study of neuromuscular disorders. Neuromuscular Disorders is a peer-reviewed medical journal that focuses on neuromuscular disease, including muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, and myasthenia. It is the official journal of the World Muscle Society. It was established in 1991 and is published by Elsevier.

ISSN
0960-8966
ISSN

The ISSN of Neuromuscular Disorders is 0960-8966 . 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)
1873-2364
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Neuromuscular Disorders is 1873-2364 . 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

Neuromuscular Disorders is published by Elsevier Ltd. .

Publication Frequency
-
Publication Frequency

Neuromuscular Disorders publishes reports - .

Coverage
1991 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of Neuromuscular Disorders covers 1991 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Neuromuscular Disorders 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 Neuromuscular Disorders. Neuromuscular Disorders 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
-
Language

The language of Neuromuscular Disorders is - .

Country/Region
United Kingdom
Country/Region

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

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.

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

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)