Developmental Review
ปัจจัยกระทบ - การวิเคราะห์ · แนวโน้ม · การจัดอันดับ · คาดการณ์


ใหม่

ปัจจัยกระทบ

2020-2021

8.306

122.9%

ปัจจัยกระทบ Trend

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Researchain
One-click to visualize your research performance

Highly Cited Articles

Developmental Review

High Impact Research Articles
Publication Title Author Listing
Publication Title Author Listing
· · · · · ·
·
· ·
·
·
· · · ·
·
·
· ·
· · · · · · · · ·
· · · ·
·

Highly Cited Keywords

Developmental Review

High Impact Research Keywords

Journal Research Scope

Developmental Review

Research Scope

Research Scope

Developmental Review

Research Scope

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Developmental Review

The 2020-2021 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 8.306, which is just updated in 2021.

Developmental Review Impact Factor
Highest IF
8.306
Highest ปัจจัยกระทบ

The highest ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 8.306.

Lowest IF
3.226
Lowest ปัจจัยกระทบ

The lowest ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 3.226.

Total Growth Rate
157.5%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Developmental Review IF is 157.5%.

Annual Growth Rate
15.8%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Developmental Review IF is 15.8%.

ปัจจัยกระทบ Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Education Q1 10/1319

Education 99%

Experimental and Cognitive Psychology Q1 3/148

Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 98%

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health Q1 6/294

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health 98%

Developmental and Educational Psychology Q1 11/332

Developmental and Educational Psychology 96%

Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1 24/502

Psychiatry and Mental Health 95%

ปัจจัยกระทบ Ranking

· In the Education research field, the Quartile of Developmental Review is Q1. Developmental Review has been ranked #10 over 1319 related journals in the Education research category. The ranking percentile of Developmental Review is around 99% in the field of Education.
· In the Experimental and Cognitive Psychology research field, the Quartile of Developmental Review is Q1. Developmental Review has been ranked #3 over 148 related journals in the Experimental and Cognitive Psychology research category. The ranking percentile of Developmental Review is around 98% in the field of Experimental and Cognitive Psychology.
· In the Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health research field, the Quartile of Developmental Review is Q1. Developmental Review has been ranked #6 over 294 related journals in the Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health research category. The ranking percentile of Developmental Review is around 98% in the field of Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health.
· In the Developmental and Educational Psychology research field, the Quartile of Developmental Review is Q1. Developmental Review has been ranked #11 over 332 related journals in the Developmental and Educational Psychology research category. The ranking percentile of Developmental Review is around 96% in the field of Developmental and Educational Psychology.
· In the Psychiatry and Mental Health research field, the Quartile of Developmental Review is Q1. Developmental Review has been ranked #24 over 502 related journals in the Psychiatry and Mental Health research category. The ranking percentile of Developmental Review is around 95% in the field of Psychiatry and Mental Health.

Developmental Review Impact Factor 2021-2022 Prediction

Developmental Review Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
764
Total Citations
99632

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

ปัจจัยกระทบ History

Year ปัจจัยกระทบ
Year ปัจจัยกระทบ
2020-2021 8.306
2019-2020 3.727
2018-2019 4.846
2017-2018 4.783
2016-2017 4.638
2015-2016 4.8
2014-2015 4.0
2013-2014 3.32
2012-2013 3.452
2011-2012 3.226
ปัจจัยกระทบ History

· The 2020-2021 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 8.306
· The 2019-2020 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 3.727
· The 2018-2019 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 4.846
· The 2017-2018 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 4.783
· The 2016-2017 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 4.638
· The 2015-2016 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 4.8
· The 2014-2015 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 4.0
· The 2013-2014 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 3.32
· The 2012-2013 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 3.452
· The 2011-2012 ปัจจัยกระทบ of Developmental Review is 3.226

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1980 0 2
1981 32 25
1982 18 28
1983 28 82
1984 22 190
1985 16 242
1986 19 283
1987 17 308
1988 16 465
1989 19 462
1990 18 557
1991 18 856
1992 16 788
1993 22 706
1994 18 1062
1995 20 883
1996 18 1078
1997 22 1016
1998 20 1212
1999 21 1230
2000 18 1253
2001 17 1470
2002 22 1688
2003 15 1768
2004 19 2063
2005 16 1959
2006 19 2453
2007 17 2768
2008 20 3315
2009 11 3498
2010 21 4085
2011 11 4735
2012 15 5399
2013 16 5606
2014 17 6296
2015 32 6453
2016 14 6205
2017 15 6095
2018 30 5342
2019 17 6276
2020 19 8814
2021 3 616
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Developmental Review has published 0 reports and received 2 citations in 1980.
· The Developmental Review has published 32 reports and received 25 citations in 1981.
· The Developmental Review has published 18 reports and received 28 citations in 1982.
· The Developmental Review has published 28 reports and received 82 citations in 1983.
· The Developmental Review has published 22 reports and received 190 citations in 1984.
· The Developmental Review has published 16 reports and received 242 citations in 1985.
· The Developmental Review has published 19 reports and received 283 citations in 1986.
· The Developmental Review has published 17 reports and received 308 citations in 1987.
· The Developmental Review has published 16 reports and received 465 citations in 1988.
· The Developmental Review has published 19 reports and received 462 citations in 1989.
· The Developmental Review has published 18 reports and received 557 citations in 1990.
· The Developmental Review has published 18 reports and received 856 citations in 1991.
· The Developmental Review has published 16 reports and received 788 citations in 1992.
· The Developmental Review has published 22 reports and received 706 citations in 1993.
· The Developmental Review has published 18 reports and received 1062 citations in 1994.
· The Developmental Review has published 20 reports and received 883 citations in 1995.
· The Developmental Review has published 18 reports and received 1078 citations in 1996.
· The Developmental Review has published 22 reports and received 1016 citations in 1997.
· The Developmental Review has published 20 reports and received 1212 citations in 1998.
· The Developmental Review has published 21 reports and received 1230 citations in 1999.
· The Developmental Review has published 18 reports and received 1253 citations in 2000.
· The Developmental Review has published 17 reports and received 1470 citations in 2001.
· The Developmental Review has published 22 reports and received 1688 citations in 2002.
· The Developmental Review has published 15 reports and received 1768 citations in 2003.
· The Developmental Review has published 19 reports and received 2063 citations in 2004.
· The Developmental Review has published 16 reports and received 1959 citations in 2005.
· The Developmental Review has published 19 reports and received 2453 citations in 2006.
· The Developmental Review has published 17 reports and received 2768 citations in 2007.
· The Developmental Review has published 20 reports and received 3315 citations in 2008.
· The Developmental Review has published 11 reports and received 3498 citations in 2009.
· The Developmental Review has published 21 reports and received 4085 citations in 2010.
· The Developmental Review has published 11 reports and received 4735 citations in 2011.
· The Developmental Review has published 15 reports and received 5399 citations in 2012.
· The Developmental Review has published 16 reports and received 5606 citations in 2013.
· The Developmental Review has published 17 reports and received 6296 citations in 2014.
· The Developmental Review has published 32 reports and received 6453 citations in 2015.
· The Developmental Review has published 14 reports and received 6205 citations in 2016.
· The Developmental Review has published 15 reports and received 6095 citations in 2017.
· The Developmental Review has published 30 reports and received 5342 citations in 2018.
· The Developmental Review has published 17 reports and received 6276 citations in 2019.
· The Developmental Review has published 19 reports and received 8814 citations in 2020.
· The Developmental Review has published 3 reports and received 616 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Developmental Review is 764.
· The total citations of Developmental Review is 99632.

Developmental Review
Journal Profile
Developmental Review | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal

About

Presenting research that bears on important conceptual issues in developmental psychologists, Developmental Review: Perspectives in Behavior and Cognition provides child and developmental, child clinical psychologists with authoritative articles that reflect current thinking and cover significant scientific developments. The journal emphasizes human developmental processes and gives particular attention to research that is relevant to developmental psychology. Research has fundamental implications for the fields of pediatrics, psychiatry, and neuroscience, and increases the understanding of socialization processes. None

ISSN
0273-2297
ISSN

The ISSN of Developmental Review is 0273-2297 . 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)
1090-2406
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Developmental Review is 1090-2406 . 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
Mosby Inc.
Publisher

Developmental Review is published by Mosby Inc. .

Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Publication Frequency

Developmental Review publishes reports Quarterly .

Coverage
1981 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of Developmental Review covers 1981 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Publication Fee
Review
Publication Fee

Language
English
Language

The language of Developmental Review is English .

Country/Region
United States
Country/Region

The publisher of Developmental Review is Mosby 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.

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