Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Factor de Impact - Analiză · Tendinţă · Clasament · Predicție


Nou

Factor de Impact

2019-2020

3.468

-2.5 %

Factor de Impact Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

The 2019-2020 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.468, which is just updated in 2020.

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review Impact Factor
Highest IF
4.75
Highest Factor de Impact

The highest Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 4.75.

Lowest IF
3.132
Lowest Factor de Impact

The lowest Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.132.

Total Growth Rate
10.7%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review IF is 10.7%.

Annual Growth Rate
1.2%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review IF is 1.2%.

Factor de Impact Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Developmental and Educational Psychology Q1 28/327

Developmental and Educational Psychology 91%

Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1 77/506

Psychiatry and Mental Health 84%

Education Q1 39/1254

Education 96%

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health Q1 18/286

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health 93%

Clinical Psychology Q1 25/275

Clinical Psychology 91%

Factor de Impact Ranking

· In the Developmental and Educational Psychology research field, the Quartile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is Q1. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has been ranked #28 over 327 related journals in the Developmental and Educational Psychology research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is around 91% in the field of Developmental and Educational Psychology.
· In the Psychiatry and Mental Health research field, the Quartile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is Q1. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has been ranked #77 over 506 related journals in the Psychiatry and Mental Health research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is around 84% in the field of Psychiatry and Mental Health.
· In the Education research field, the Quartile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is Q1. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has been ranked #39 over 1254 related journals in the Education research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is around 96% in the field of Education.
· In the Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health research field, the Quartile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is Q1. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has been ranked #18 over 286 related journals in the Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is around 93% in the field of Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health.
· In the Clinical Psychology research field, the Quartile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is Q1. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has been ranked #25 over 275 related journals in the Clinical Psychology research category. The ranking percentile of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is around 91% in the field of Clinical Psychology.

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review Impact Factor Predition System

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review Impact Factor Prediction System is now online. You can start share your valuable insights with the community.

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
446
Total Citations
61945

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

Factor de Impact History

Year Factor de Impact
Year Factor de Impact
2019-2020 3.468
2018-2019 3.558
2017-2018 3.6
2016-2017 4.171
2015-2016 3.146
2014-2015 3.146
2013-2014 4.75
2012-2013 4.216
2011-2012 3.132
Factor de Impact History

· The 2019-2020 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.468
· The 2018-2019 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.558
· The 2017-2018 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.6
· The 2016-2017 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 4.171
· The 2015-2016 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.146
· The 2014-2015 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.146
· The 2013-2014 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 4.75
· The 2012-2013 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 4.216
· The 2011-2012 Factor de Impact of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 3.132

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1998 13 6
1999 12 40
2000 15 117
2001 15 169
2002 13 399
2003 22 566
2004 17 778
2005 16 1019
2006 11 1489
2007 16 1643
2008 10 2249
2009 20 2544
2010 19 2663
2011 18 3313
2012 23 3762
2013 27 4250
2014 22 4898
2015 20 5432
2016 21 4879
2017 23 4973
2018 26 4399
2019 30 4936
2020 34 7038
2021 3 383
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 13 reports and received 6 citations in 1998.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 12 reports and received 40 citations in 1999.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 15 reports and received 117 citations in 2000.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 15 reports and received 169 citations in 2001.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 13 reports and received 399 citations in 2002.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 22 reports and received 566 citations in 2003.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 17 reports and received 778 citations in 2004.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 16 reports and received 1019 citations in 2005.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 11 reports and received 1489 citations in 2006.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 16 reports and received 1643 citations in 2007.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 10 reports and received 2249 citations in 2008.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 20 reports and received 2544 citations in 2009.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 19 reports and received 2663 citations in 2010.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 18 reports and received 3313 citations in 2011.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 23 reports and received 3762 citations in 2012.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 27 reports and received 4250 citations in 2013.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 22 reports and received 4898 citations in 2014.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 20 reports and received 5432 citations in 2015.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 21 reports and received 4879 citations in 2016.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 23 reports and received 4973 citations in 2017.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 26 reports and received 4399 citations in 2018.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 30 reports and received 4936 citations in 2019.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 34 reports and received 7038 citations in 2020.
· The Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review has published 3 reports and received 383 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 446.
· The total citations of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 61945.

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Journal Profile
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal

About

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that provides an international, interdisciplinary forum in which important and new developments in this field are identified and in-depth reviews on current thought and practices are published. The Journal publishes original research reviews, conceptual and theoretical papers, and related work in the broad area of the behavioral sciences that pertains to infants, children, adolescents, and families. Contributions originate from a wide array of disciplines including, but not limited to, psychology (e.g., clinical, community, developmental, family, school), medicine (e.g., family practice, pediatrics, psychiatry), public health, social work, and education. Topical content includes science and application and covers facets of etiology, assessment, description, treatment and intervention, prevention, methodology, and public policy. Submissions are by invitation only and undergo peer review. None

ISSN
1096-4037
ISSN

The ISSN of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 1096-4037 . 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)
1573-2827
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is 1573-2827 . 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
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Publisher

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is published by Kluwer Academic Publishers .

Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Publication Frequency

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review publishes reports Quarterly .

Coverage
1998 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review covers 1998 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 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 Child and Family Psychology Review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 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 Child and Family Psychology Review is English .

Country/Region
United States
Country/Region

The publisher of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review is Kluwer Academic Publishers , 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 Child and Family Psychology Review | 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 Child and Family Psychology Review Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 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 Child and Family Psychology Review.

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)