Impactfactor - Analyse · Trend · Ranglijst · Voorspelling






Impactfactor Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals


The 2019-2020 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.92, which is just updated in 2020.

Pancreas Impact Factor
Highest IF
Highest Impactfactor

The highest Impactfactor of Pancreas is 3.008.

Lowest IF
Lowest Impactfactor

The lowest Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.386.

Total Growth Rate
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Pancreas IF is 22.4%.

Annual Growth Rate
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Pancreas IF is 2.5%.

Impactfactor Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Internal Medicine Q2 37/128

Internal Medicine 71%

Hepatology Q2 29/61

Hepatology 53%

Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Q2 84/217

Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism 61%

Endocrinology Q3 61/118

Endocrinology 48%

Impactfactor Ranking

· In the Internal Medicine research field, the Quartile of Pancreas is Q2. Pancreas has been ranked #37 over 128 related journals in the Internal Medicine research category. The ranking percentile of Pancreas is around 71% in the field of Internal Medicine.
· In the Hepatology research field, the Quartile of Pancreas is Q2. Pancreas has been ranked #29 over 61 related journals in the Hepatology research category. The ranking percentile of Pancreas is around 53% in the field of Hepatology.
· In the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism research field, the Quartile of Pancreas is Q2. Pancreas has been ranked #84 over 217 related journals in the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism research category. The ranking percentile of Pancreas is around 61% in the field of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism.
· In the Endocrinology research field, the Quartile of Pancreas is Q3. Pancreas has been ranked #61 over 118 related journals in the Endocrinology research category. The ranking percentile of Pancreas is around 48% in the field of Endocrinology.

Pancreas Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Pancreas Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
Total Citations

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

Impactfactor History

Year Impactfactor
Year Impactfactor
2019-2020 2.92
2018-2019 2.675
2017-2018 2.958
2016-2017 2.967
2015-2016 2.738
2014-2015 2.959
2013-2014 3.008
2012-2013 2.953
2011-2012 2.386
Impactfactor History

· The 2019-2020 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.92
· The 2018-2019 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.675
· The 2017-2018 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.958
· The 2016-2017 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.967
· The 2015-2016 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.738
· The 2014-2015 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.959
· The 2013-2014 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 3.008
· The 2012-2013 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.953
· The 2011-2012 Impactfactor of Pancreas is 2.386

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1986 81 18
1987 111 63
1988 117 194
1989 105 339
1990 107 566
1991 116 601
1992 113 676
1993 118 815
1994 120 881
1995 133 960
1996 138 939
1997 135 1273
1998 159 1658
1999 130 2182
2000 137 2278
2001 135 2552
2002 149 2771
2003 189 3348
2004 309 3640
2005 331 4315
2006 395 4801
2007 390 5816
2008 406 6089
2009 314 6455
2010 295 6894
2011 254 7082
2012 232 8591
2013 217 9205
2014 249 10090
2015 189 10241
2016 265 9781
2017 272 9743
2018 215 7292
2019 245 7988
2020 267 9667
2021 25 727
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Pancreas has published 81 reports and received 18 citations in 1986.
· The Pancreas has published 111 reports and received 63 citations in 1987.
· The Pancreas has published 117 reports and received 194 citations in 1988.
· The Pancreas has published 105 reports and received 339 citations in 1989.
· The Pancreas has published 107 reports and received 566 citations in 1990.
· The Pancreas has published 116 reports and received 601 citations in 1991.
· The Pancreas has published 113 reports and received 676 citations in 1992.
· The Pancreas has published 118 reports and received 815 citations in 1993.
· The Pancreas has published 120 reports and received 881 citations in 1994.
· The Pancreas has published 133 reports and received 960 citations in 1995.
· The Pancreas has published 138 reports and received 939 citations in 1996.
· The Pancreas has published 135 reports and received 1273 citations in 1997.
· The Pancreas has published 159 reports and received 1658 citations in 1998.
· The Pancreas has published 130 reports and received 2182 citations in 1999.
· The Pancreas has published 137 reports and received 2278 citations in 2000.
· The Pancreas has published 135 reports and received 2552 citations in 2001.
· The Pancreas has published 149 reports and received 2771 citations in 2002.
· The Pancreas has published 189 reports and received 3348 citations in 2003.
· The Pancreas has published 309 reports and received 3640 citations in 2004.
· The Pancreas has published 331 reports and received 4315 citations in 2005.
· The Pancreas has published 395 reports and received 4801 citations in 2006.
· The Pancreas has published 390 reports and received 5816 citations in 2007.
· The Pancreas has published 406 reports and received 6089 citations in 2008.
· The Pancreas has published 314 reports and received 6455 citations in 2009.
· The Pancreas has published 295 reports and received 6894 citations in 2010.
· The Pancreas has published 254 reports and received 7082 citations in 2011.
· The Pancreas has published 232 reports and received 8591 citations in 2012.
· The Pancreas has published 217 reports and received 9205 citations in 2013.
· The Pancreas has published 249 reports and received 10090 citations in 2014.
· The Pancreas has published 189 reports and received 10241 citations in 2015.
· The Pancreas has published 265 reports and received 9781 citations in 2016.
· The Pancreas has published 272 reports and received 9743 citations in 2017.
· The Pancreas has published 215 reports and received 7292 citations in 2018.
· The Pancreas has published 245 reports and received 7988 citations in 2019.
· The Pancreas has published 267 reports and received 9667 citations in 2020.
· The Pancreas has published 25 reports and received 727 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Pancreas is 7163.
· The total citations of Pancreas is 150531.

Journal Profile
Pancreas | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal


​​Pancreas provides a central forum for communication of original works involving both basic and clinical research on the exocrine and endocrine pancreas and their interrelationships and consequences in disease states. This multidisciplinary, international journal covers the whole spectrum of basic sciences, etiology, prevention, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and surgical and medical management of pancreatic diseases, including cancer.Features Include:Original articles covering new basic and clinical researchReviewsCase ReportsLetters to the Editor. None


The ISSN of Pancreas is 0885-3177 . 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)
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Pancreas is 1536-4828 . 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.

Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.

Pancreas is published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd. .

Publication Frequency
Publication Frequency

Pancreas publishes reports Bimonthly .

1986 - Present

The Publication History of Pancreas covers 1986 - Present .

Open Access
Open Access

Pancreas 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 Pancreas. Pancreas 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.


The language of Pancreas is English .

United States

The publisher of Pancreas is Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd. , 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.

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


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.


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


  • A vetted, established metric for measuring journal impact within a discipline.
  • Designed to eliminate bias based on journal size and frequency.
  • 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.


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)

Selected Articles

Full Title Authors
Full Title Authors