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





-11.0 %


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 Articles

Endocrine Practice

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

Highly Cited Keywords

Endocrine Practice

High Impact Research Keywords


Endocrine Practice

Endocrine Practice 2020-2021 年的影响因子为3.443。

Endocrine Practice Impact Factor
最高影响因子 IF

近十年Endocrine Practice的最高影响因子为4.149。

最低影响因子 IF

近十年Endocrine Practice的最低影响因子为2.074。

影响因子 总成长率
影响因子 总成长率

近十年Endocrine Practice的影响因子总成长率为38.5%。

影响因子 平均成长率
影响因子 平均成长率

近十年Endocrine Practice的影响因子平均成长率为3.9%。


子领域 分区 排名 百分比
Medicine (all) 1区 62/793

Medicine (all) 92%


· 在Medicine (all)研究领域,Endocrine Practice的分区数为1区。Endocrine Practice在Medicine (all)研究类别的793种相关期刊中排名第62。在Medicine (all)领域,Endocrine Practice的排名百分位约为92%。

Endocrine Practice Impact Factor 2021-2022 Prediction

Endocrine Practice Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions






2020-2021 3.443
2019-2020 3.869
2018-2019 4.149
2017-2018 3.805
2016-2017 2.347
2015-2016 2.074
2014-2015 2.811
2013-2014 2.588
2012-2013 2.327
2011-2012 2.486

· Endocrine Practice 2020-2021年的影响因子为3.443
· Endocrine Practice 2019-2020年的影响因子为3.869
· Endocrine Practice 2018-2019年的影响因子为4.149
· Endocrine Practice 2017-2018年的影响因子为3.805
· Endocrine Practice 2016-2017年的影响因子为2.347
· Endocrine Practice 2015-2016年的影响因子为2.074
· Endocrine Practice 2014-2015年的影响因子为2.811
· Endocrine Practice 2013-2014年的影响因子为2.588
· Endocrine Practice 2012-2013年的影响因子为2.327
· Endocrine Practice 2011-2012年的影响因子为2.486


出版数量 引用数量
出版数量 引用数量
1994 0 1
1995 51 1
1996 66 10
1997 59 37
1998 78 56
1999 66 86
2000 83 104
2001 89 194
2002 96 324
2003 175 556
2004 229 817
2005 198 1149
2006 318 1842
2007 128 2304
2008 201 2763
2009 119 3120
2010 178 3829
2011 196 4291
2012 176 5214
2013 196 5521
2014 219 6591
2015 662 6412
2016 802 6164
2017 704 6584
2018 661 5535
2019 723 6184
2020 756 7116
2021 7 449

· Endocrine Practice于1994年发表了0篇报告,并取得1篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于1995年发表了51篇报告,并取得1篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于1996年发表了66篇报告,并取得10篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于1997年发表了59篇报告,并取得37篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于1998年发表了78篇报告,并取得56篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于1999年发表了66篇报告,并取得86篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2000年发表了83篇报告,并取得104篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2001年发表了89篇报告,并取得194篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2002年发表了96篇报告,并取得324篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2003年发表了175篇报告,并取得556篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2004年发表了229篇报告,并取得817篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2005年发表了198篇报告,并取得1149篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2006年发表了318篇报告,并取得1842篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2007年发表了128篇报告,并取得2304篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2008年发表了201篇报告,并取得2763篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2009年发表了119篇报告,并取得3120篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2010年发表了178篇报告,并取得3829篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2011年发表了196篇报告,并取得4291篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2012年发表了176篇报告,并取得5214篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2013年发表了196篇报告,并取得5521篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2014年发表了219篇报告,并取得6591篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2015年发表了662篇报告,并取得6412篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2016年发表了802篇报告,并取得6164篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2017年发表了704篇报告,并取得6584篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2018年发表了661篇报告,并取得5535篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2019年发表了723篇报告,并取得6184篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2020年发表了756篇报告,并取得7116篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice于2021年发表了7篇报告,并取得449篇引用文献。
· Endocrine Practice的总出版物为7236。
· Endocrine Practice的总引用为77254。

Endocrine Practice
Endocrine Practice | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal


Endocrine Practice is a peer-reviewed journal published six times a year and is the official journal of the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE). The first issue of Endocrine Practice was published in 1995. The primary mission of Endocrine Practice is to enhance the health care of patients with endocrine diseases through continuing education of practicing endocrinologists. None


Endocrine Practice的ISSN是 1530-891X 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)

Endocrine Practice的ISSN(Online)是 1934-2403 . 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。

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology

Endocrine Practice的出版社是 American Association of Clinical Endocrinology


Endocrine Practice publishes reports Bimonthly .

2000 - Present

Endocrine Practice的出版年度包含 2000 - Present .




The language of Endocrine Practice is English .

United States

The publisher of Endocrine Practice is American Association of Clinical Endocrinology , 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.

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


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。

Endocrine Practice | 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。