Chemical Society Reviews
最新影響指數 - 實時趨勢預測 & 期刊影響力排名









Chemical Society Reviews

Chemical Society Reviews 2019-2020 年的影響指數為42.846。

Chemical Society Reviews Impact Factor
最高影響指數 IF

近十年Chemical Society Reviews的最高影響指數為42.846。

最低影響指數 IF

近十年Chemical Society Reviews的最低影響指數為24.892。

影響指數 累積成長率
影響指數 累積成長率

近十年Chemical Society Reviews的影響指數累積成長率為49.0%。

影響指數 平均成長率
影響指數 平均成長率

近十年Chemical Society Reviews的影響指數平均成長率為5.4%。


子領域 四分位數 排名 百分比
General Chemistry Q1 2/398

General Chemistry 99%


· 在General Chemistry研究領域,Chemical Society Reviews的四分位數為Q1。Chemical Society Reviews在General Chemistry研究類別的398種相關期刊中排名第2。在General Chemistry研究領域,Chemical Society Reviews的排名百分位約為99%。

Chemical Society Reviews Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Chemical Society Reviews Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions






2019-2020 42.846
2018-2019 40.443
2017-2018 40.182
2016-2017 38.618
2015-2016 34.09
2014-2015 33.383
2013-2014 30.425
2012-2013 24.892
2011-2012 28.76

· Chemical Society Reviews 2019-2020年的影響指數為42.846
· Chemical Society Reviews 2018-2019年的影響指數為40.443
· Chemical Society Reviews 2017-2018年的影響指數為40.182
· Chemical Society Reviews 2016-2017年的影響指數為38.618
· Chemical Society Reviews 2015-2016年的影響指數為34.09
· Chemical Society Reviews 2014-2015年的影響指數為33.383
· Chemical Society Reviews 2013-2014年的影響指數為30.425
· Chemical Society Reviews 2012-2013年的影響指數為24.892
· Chemical Society Reviews 2011-2012年的影響指數為28.76


出版數量 引用數量
出版数量 引用数量
1972 21 8
1973 20 59
1974 20 155
1975 25 198
1976 21 314
1977 20 328
1978 24 407
1979 22 510
1980 19 472
1981 20 551
1982 17 629
1983 16 632
1984 17 674
1985 18 721
1986 19 830
1987 15 741
1988 15 921
1989 17 954
1990 18 1210
1991 15 1337
1992 32 1351
1993 48 1450
1994 46 1680
1995 46 2029
1996 48 2077
1997 46 2148
1998 47 2368
1999 39 3080
2000 39 3451
2001 37 4174
2002 35 4354
2003 36 4482
2004 59 5158
2005 73 7390
2006 91 8613
2007 138 11064
2008 187 14145
2009 232 20578
2010 299 29854
2011 319 50892
2012 394 70941
2013 438 93382
2014 387 118129
2015 367 142910
2016 290 158447
2017 386 175309
2018 313 146455
2019 187 160864
2020 296 188194
2021 66 24263

· Chemical Society Reviews於1972年發表了21篇报告,並取得8篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1973年發表了20篇报告,並取得59篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1974年發表了20篇报告,並取得155篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1975年發表了25篇报告,並取得198篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1976年發表了21篇报告,並取得314篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1977年發表了20篇报告,並取得328篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1978年發表了24篇报告,並取得407篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1979年發表了22篇报告,並取得510篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1980年發表了19篇报告,並取得472篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1981年發表了20篇报告,並取得551篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1982年發表了17篇报告,並取得629篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1983年發表了16篇报告,並取得632篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1984年發表了17篇报告,並取得674篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1985年發表了18篇报告,並取得721篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1986年發表了19篇报告,並取得830篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1987年發表了15篇报告,並取得741篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1988年發表了15篇报告,並取得921篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1989年發表了17篇报告,並取得954篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1990年發表了18篇报告,並取得1210篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1991年發表了15篇报告,並取得1337篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1992年發表了32篇报告,並取得1351篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1993年發表了48篇报告,並取得1450篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1994年發表了46篇报告,並取得1680篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1995年發表了46篇报告,並取得2029篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1996年發表了48篇报告,並取得2077篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1997年發表了46篇报告,並取得2148篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1998年發表了47篇报告,並取得2368篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於1999年發表了39篇报告,並取得3080篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2000年發表了39篇报告,並取得3451篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2001年發表了37篇报告,並取得4174篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2002年發表了35篇报告,並取得4354篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2003年發表了36篇报告,並取得4482篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2004年發表了59篇报告,並取得5158篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2005年發表了73篇报告,並取得7390篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2006年發表了91篇报告,並取得8613篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2007年發表了138篇报告,並取得11064篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2008年發表了187篇报告,並取得14145篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2009年發表了232篇报告,並取得20578篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2010年發表了299篇报告,並取得29854篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2011年發表了319篇报告,並取得50892篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2012年發表了394篇报告,並取得70941篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2013年發表了438篇报告,並取得93382篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2014年發表了387篇报告,並取得118129篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2015年發表了367篇报告,並取得142910篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2016年發表了290篇报告,並取得158447篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2017年發表了386篇报告,並取得175309篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2018年發表了313篇报告,並取得146455篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2019年發表了187篇报告,並取得160864篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2020年發表了296篇报告,並取得188194篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews於2021年發表了66篇报告,並取得24263篇文獻引用。
· Chemical Society Reviews的總出版物為5400。
· Chemical Society Reviews的總引用數為1470883。

Chemical Society Reviews
Chemical Society Reviews | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal


Chem Soc Rev (Chemical Society Reviews) is the Royal Society of Chemistry's leading reviews journal, publishing high-impact, succinct and reader-friendly articles at the forefront of the chemical sciences. Reviews should be of the very highest quality and international impact. We particularly encourage international and multidisciplinary collaborations among our authors. The majority of reviews will be solicited by members of the editorial board in accordance with editorial policy. However, the editorial office welcomes suggestions for reviews that would be suitable for the journal. Chemical Society Reviews is a biweekly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, for review articles on topics of current interest in chemistry. Its predecessors were Quarterly Reviews, Chemical Society (1947??971) and Royal Institute of Chemistry, Reviews (1968??971); it maintained its current title since 1971. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2018 impact factor of 40.443, ranking it second out of 172 journals in the category Chemistry, Multidisciplinary. The current editor-in-chief (Chair of Editorial Board) is Douglas Stephan.


Chemical Society Reviews的ISSN是 0306-0012 ISSN是一個8位數的代碼,用於識別各種報紙,期刊,雜誌和期刊以及所有媒體 - 包括印刷版和電子版。

ISSN (Online)
ISSN (Online)

Chemical Society Reviews的ISSN(Online)是 1460-4744 . ISSN是一個8位數的代碼,用於識別各種報紙,期刊,雜誌和期刊以及所有媒體 - 包括印刷版和電子版。

Royal Society of Chemistry

Chemical Society Reviews的出版社是 Royal Society of Chemistry


Chemical Society Reviews publishes reports Monthly .

1972 - Present

Chemical Society Reviews的出版年度包含 1972 - Present .


Chemical Society Reviews傳統訂閱 (non-OA) 期刊。出版商擁有其期刊中文章的版權。任何想要閱讀文章的人都應該由個人或機構支付費用來訪問這些文章。任何人想以任何方式使用這些文章都必須獲得出版商的許可。


There is no publication fee for submiting manuscript to Chemical Society Reviews. Chemical Society Reviews 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.


The language of Chemical Society Reviews is English .

United Kingdom

The publisher of Chemical Society Reviews is Royal Society of Chemistry , 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.

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


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)


影響指數(IF)經常用作表明期刊對其領域重要性的指標。它是由科學信息研究所的創始人Eugene Garfield首次提出的。儘管IF被機構和臨床醫生廣泛使用,但是人們對於IF日記的計算方法,其意義以及如何利用它存在著廣泛的誤解。期刊的影響指數與同行評議過程的質量和期刊的內容質量等因素無關,而是一種反映對期刊,書籍,論文,項目報告,報紙上發表的文章的平均引用次數的度量,會議/研討會論文集,在互聯網上發布的文件,說明以及任何其他批准的文件。

Chemical Society Reviews | Academic Accelerator - About the Impact Factor

影響指數通常用於評估期刊在其領域內的相對重要性,以及衡量期刊在特定時間段內引用“平均文章”的頻率。發表更多評論文章的期刊將獲得最高的IF。 IF較高的期刊被認為比IF較低的期刊更重要。根據尤金·加菲爾德(Eugene Garfield)的說法,“影響只是反映期刊和編輯吸引最佳論文的能力。”發表更多評論文章的期刊將獲得最大的IF。