Thyroid
Hệ số ảnh hưởng - Phân tích · Khuynh hướng · Xếp hạng · Sự dự đoán


Mới

Hệ số ảnh hưởng

2020-2021

6.568

23.7%

Hệ số ảnh hưởng 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

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Thyroid

The 2020-2021 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 6.568, which is just updated in 2021.

Thyroid Impact Factor
Highest IF
7.786
Highest Hệ số ảnh hưởng

The highest Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 7.786.

Lowest IF
3.544
Lowest Hệ số ảnh hưởng

The lowest Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 3.544.

Total Growth Rate
37.1%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Thyroid IF is 37.1%.

Annual Growth Rate
3.7%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Thyroid IF is 3.7%.

Hệ số ảnh hưởng Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Q1 18/219

Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism 92%

Endocrinology Q1 10/117

Endocrinology 91%

Hệ số ảnh hưởng Ranking

· In the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism research field, the Quartile of Thyroid is Q1. Thyroid has been ranked #18 over 219 related journals in the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism research category. The ranking percentile of Thyroid is around 92% in the field of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism.
· In the Endocrinology research field, the Quartile of Thyroid is Q1. Thyroid has been ranked #10 over 117 related journals in the Endocrinology research category. The ranking percentile of Thyroid is around 91% in the field of Endocrinology.

Thyroid Impact Factor 2021-2022 Prediction

Thyroid Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
5809
Total Citations
247050

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

Hệ số ảnh hưởng History

Year Hệ số ảnh hưởng
Year Hệ số ảnh hưởng
2020-2021 6.568
2019-2020 5.309
2018-2019 7.786
2017-2018 7.557
2016-2017 5.515
2015-2016 3.784
2014-2015 4.493
2013-2014 3.843
2012-2013 3.544
2011-2012 4.792
Hệ số ảnh hưởng History

· The 2020-2021 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 6.568
· The 2019-2020 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 5.309
· The 2018-2019 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 7.786
· The 2017-2018 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 7.557
· The 2016-2017 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 5.515
· The 2015-2016 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 3.784
· The 2014-2015 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 4.493
· The 2013-2014 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 3.843
· The 2012-2013 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 3.544
· The 2011-2012 Hệ số ảnh hưởng of Thyroid is 4.792

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1988 11 0
1989 24 5
1990 35 8
1991 60 12
1992 82 82
1993 76 164
1994 100 244
1995 95 420
1996 98 462
1997 144 982
1998 183 1431
1999 201 1718
2000 184 3106
2001 189 3519
2002 187 4291
2003 160 4660
2004 177 5347
2005 233 5959
2006 208 7134
2007 219 7902
2008 243 9047
2009 235 10232
2010 243 11137
2011 237 12712
2012 237 14195
2013 257 15043
2014 240 17774
2015 210 16515
2016 247 19454
2017 235 19108
2018 217 15377
2019 211 16578
2020 303 20962
2021 28 1470
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Thyroid has published 11 reports and received 0 citations in 1988.
· The Thyroid has published 24 reports and received 5 citations in 1989.
· The Thyroid has published 35 reports and received 8 citations in 1990.
· The Thyroid has published 60 reports and received 12 citations in 1991.
· The Thyroid has published 82 reports and received 82 citations in 1992.
· The Thyroid has published 76 reports and received 164 citations in 1993.
· The Thyroid has published 100 reports and received 244 citations in 1994.
· The Thyroid has published 95 reports and received 420 citations in 1995.
· The Thyroid has published 98 reports and received 462 citations in 1996.
· The Thyroid has published 144 reports and received 982 citations in 1997.
· The Thyroid has published 183 reports and received 1431 citations in 1998.
· The Thyroid has published 201 reports and received 1718 citations in 1999.
· The Thyroid has published 184 reports and received 3106 citations in 2000.
· The Thyroid has published 189 reports and received 3519 citations in 2001.
· The Thyroid has published 187 reports and received 4291 citations in 2002.
· The Thyroid has published 160 reports and received 4660 citations in 2003.
· The Thyroid has published 177 reports and received 5347 citations in 2004.
· The Thyroid has published 233 reports and received 5959 citations in 2005.
· The Thyroid has published 208 reports and received 7134 citations in 2006.
· The Thyroid has published 219 reports and received 7902 citations in 2007.
· The Thyroid has published 243 reports and received 9047 citations in 2008.
· The Thyroid has published 235 reports and received 10232 citations in 2009.
· The Thyroid has published 243 reports and received 11137 citations in 2010.
· The Thyroid has published 237 reports and received 12712 citations in 2011.
· The Thyroid has published 237 reports and received 14195 citations in 2012.
· The Thyroid has published 257 reports and received 15043 citations in 2013.
· The Thyroid has published 240 reports and received 17774 citations in 2014.
· The Thyroid has published 210 reports and received 16515 citations in 2015.
· The Thyroid has published 247 reports and received 19454 citations in 2016.
· The Thyroid has published 235 reports and received 19108 citations in 2017.
· The Thyroid has published 217 reports and received 15377 citations in 2018.
· The Thyroid has published 211 reports and received 16578 citations in 2019.
· The Thyroid has published 303 reports and received 20962 citations in 2020.
· The Thyroid has published 28 reports and received 1470 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Thyroid is 5809.
· The total citations of Thyroid is 247050.

Thyroid
Journal Profile
Thyroid | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal

About

Thyroid is the leading, peer-reviewed resource for original articles, patient-focused reports, and translational research on thyroid cancer and all thyroid related diseases. The Journal delivers the latest findings on topics from primary care to clinical application, and is the exclusive source for the authoritative and updated American Thyroid Association® (ATA) Guidelines for Managing Thyroid Disease. Thyroid coverage includes: Thyrotoxicosis, thyroid hormone resistance, and hypothyroidism Thyroid status testing Autoimmune thyroid illness Dysthyroid orbitopathy (Graves’ Ophthalmopathy) Nodular thyroid disease Thyroid surgery Thyroid imaging Pediatric and neonatal thyroid disorder Genetics of thyroid disease Thyroid diseases and pregnancy Iodine deficiency, goiter-hypothyroidism-neurological dysfunction Cell biology of the thyrocyte Nuclear and extranuclear actions of thyroid hormones Brain-pituitary-thyroid regulation Animal models of thyroid disease. Thyroid is a medical journal in the field of endocrinology, covering research on diseases of the thyroid. It is the official journal of the American Thyroid Association and published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc..

ISSN
1050-7256
ISSN

The ISSN of Thyroid is 1050-7256 . 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)
1557-9077
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Thyroid is 1557-9077 . 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
Mary Ann Liebert Inc.
Publisher

Thyroid is published by Mary Ann Liebert Inc. .

Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Publication Frequency

Thyroid publishes reports Quarterly .

Coverage
1990 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of Thyroid covers 1990 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Publication Fee
Review
Publication Fee

Language
English
Language

The language of Thyroid is English .

Country/Region
United States
Country/Region

The publisher of Thyroid is Mary Ann Liebert 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.

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

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)