Clinical Oncology
最新影响因子 - 实时趋势预测 & 排名分区分析







One-click to visualize your research performance

One-click to visualize your research performance

One-click to visualize your research performance

One-click to visualize your research performance

Highly Cited Keywords

Clinical Oncology

High Impact Research Keywords

Journal Research Scope

Clinical Oncology

Research Scope

Research Scope

Clinical Oncology

Research Scope


Clinical Oncology

Clinical Oncology 2021-2022 年的影响因子为4.126。

Clinical Oncology Impact Factor
最高影响因子 IF

近十年Clinical Oncology的最高影响因子为4.126。

最低影响因子 IF

近十年Clinical Oncology的最低影响因子为2.072。

影响因子 总成长率
影响因子 总成长率

近十年Clinical Oncology的影响因子总成长率为99.1%。

影响因子 平均成长率
影响因子 平均成长率

近十年Clinical Oncology的影响因子平均成长率为9.9%。


子领域 分区 排名 百分比
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging 1区 48/288

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging 83%

Oncology 2区 104/340

Oncology 69%


· 在Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging研究领域,Clinical Oncology的分区数为1区。Clinical Oncology在Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging研究类别的288种相关期刊中排名第48。在Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging领域,Clinical Oncology的排名百分位约为83%。
· 在Oncology研究领域,Clinical Oncology的分区数为2区。Clinical Oncology在Oncology研究类别的340种相关期刊中排名第104。在Oncology领域,Clinical Oncology的排名百分位约为69%。

Clinical Oncology Impact Factor 2022-2023 Prediction

Clinical Oncology Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions






2020-2021 4.126
2019-2020 3.113
2018-2019 3.047
2017-2018 3.06
2016-2017 3.236
2015-2016 3.212
2014-2015 3.398
2013-2014 2.826
2012-2013 2.858
2011-2012 2.072

· Clinical Oncology 2020-2021年的影响因子为4.126
· Clinical Oncology 2019-2020年的影响因子为3.113
· Clinical Oncology 2018-2019年的影响因子为3.047
· Clinical Oncology 2017-2018年的影响因子为3.06
· Clinical Oncology 2016-2017年的影响因子为3.236
· Clinical Oncology 2015-2016年的影响因子为3.212
· Clinical Oncology 2014-2015年的影响因子为3.398
· Clinical Oncology 2013-2014年的影响因子为2.826
· Clinical Oncology 2012-2013年的影响因子为2.858
· Clinical Oncology 2011-2012年的影响因子为2.072


出版数量 引用数量
出版数量 引用数量
1975 36 7
1976 50 30
1977 43 48
1978 46 60
1979 46 97
1980 45 108
1981 43 129
1982 49 148
1983 48 163
1984 51 203
1985 10 232
1986 0 256
1987 0 241
1988 0 227
1989 28 258
1990 93 280
1991 116 330
1992 135 344
1993 191 300
1994 124 389
1995 149 502
1996 180 570
1997 130 571
1998 137 673
1999 89 824
2000 87 790
2001 116 919
2002 118 986
2003 128 1204
2004 137 1333
2005 149 1659
2006 171 2091
2007 298 2198
2008 165 2700
2009 166 2994
2010 160 3684
2011 296 3828
2012 138 4736
2013 137 4740
2014 200 5196
2015 356 5083
2016 312 4854
2017 339 4998
2018 279 4021
2019 287 4421
2020 299 5515
2021 52 411

· Clinical Oncology于1975年发表了36篇报告,并取得7篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1976年发表了50篇报告,并取得30篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1977年发表了43篇报告,并取得48篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1978年发表了46篇报告,并取得60篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1979年发表了46篇报告,并取得97篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1980年发表了45篇报告,并取得108篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1981年发表了43篇报告,并取得129篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1982年发表了49篇报告,并取得148篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1983年发表了48篇报告,并取得163篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1984年发表了51篇报告,并取得203篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1985年发表了10篇报告,并取得232篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1986年发表了0篇报告,并取得256篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1987年发表了0篇报告,并取得241篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1988年发表了0篇报告,并取得227篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1989年发表了28篇报告,并取得258篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1990年发表了93篇报告,并取得280篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1991年发表了116篇报告,并取得330篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1992年发表了135篇报告,并取得344篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1993年发表了191篇报告,并取得300篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1994年发表了124篇报告,并取得389篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1995年发表了149篇报告,并取得502篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1996年发表了180篇报告,并取得570篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1997年发表了130篇报告,并取得571篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1998年发表了137篇报告,并取得673篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于1999年发表了89篇报告,并取得824篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2000年发表了87篇报告,并取得790篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2001年发表了116篇报告,并取得919篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2002年发表了118篇报告,并取得986篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2003年发表了128篇报告,并取得1204篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2004年发表了137篇报告,并取得1333篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2005年发表了149篇报告,并取得1659篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2006年发表了171篇报告,并取得2091篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2007年发表了298篇报告,并取得2198篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2008年发表了165篇报告,并取得2700篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2009年发表了166篇报告,并取得2994篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2010年发表了160篇报告,并取得3684篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2011年发表了296篇报告,并取得3828篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2012年发表了138篇报告,并取得4736篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2013年发表了137篇报告,并取得4740篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2014年发表了200篇报告,并取得5196篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2015年发表了356篇报告,并取得5083篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2016年发表了312篇报告,并取得4854篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2017年发表了339篇报告,并取得4998篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2018年发表了279篇报告,并取得4021篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2019年发表了287篇报告,并取得4421篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2020年发表了299篇报告,并取得5515篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology于2021年发表了52篇报告,并取得411篇引用文献。
· Clinical Oncology的总出版物为6229。
· Clinical Oncology的总引用为75351。

Clinical Oncology
Clinical Oncology | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal


Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews. None


Clinical Oncology的ISSN是 0936-6555 ISSN是一个8位数的代码,用于识别各种报纸,期刊,杂志和期刊以及所有媒体 - 包括印刷版和电子版。

ISSN (Online)
ISSN (Online)

Clinical Oncology的ISSN(Online)是 1433-2981 . ISSN是一个8位数的代码,用于识别各种报纸,期刊,杂志和期刊以及所有媒体 - 包括印刷版和电子版。

W.B. Saunders Ltd

Clinical Oncology的出版社是 W.B. Saunders Ltd


Clinical Oncology publishes reports Quarterly .

1975, 1984-1985, 1989-2020

Clinical Oncology的出版年度包含 1975, 1984-1985, 1989-2020 .




The language of Clinical Oncology is English .

United Kingdom

The publisher of Clinical Oncology is W.B. Saunders 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.

Clinical Oncology | 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 Oncology Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2021) by papers published in the Clinical Oncology during the two preceding years (2019-2020). Note that 2021 Impact Factor are reported in 2022; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2021 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 Oncology.


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)


影响因子(IF)经常用作表明期刊对其领域重要性的指标。它是由科学信息研究所的创始人Eugene Garfield首次提出的。尽管IF被机构和临床医生广泛使用,但是人们对于IF日记的计算方法,其意义以及如何利用它存在着广泛的误解。期刊的影响因子与同行评议过程的质量和期刊的内容质量等因素无关,而是一种反映对期刊,书籍,论文,项目报告,报纸上发表的文章的平均引用次数的度量,会议/研讨会论文集,在互联网上发布的文件,说明以及任何其他批准的文件。

Clinical Oncology | Academic Accelerator - About the Impact Factor

影响因子通常用于评估期刊在其领域内的相对重要性,以及衡量期刊在特定时间段内引用“平均文章”的频率。发表更多评论文章的期刊将获得最高的IF。 IF较高的期刊被认为比IF较低的期刊更重要。根据尤金·加菲尔德(Eugene Garfield)的说法,“影响只是反映期刊和编辑吸引最佳论文的能力。”发表更多评论文章的期刊将获得最大的IF。

Scientific Writng Keywords