Clinical Oncology
最新影響指數 - 實時趨勢預測 & 期刊影響力排名







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 年的影響指數為4.126。

Clinical Oncology Impact Factor
最高影響指數 IF

近十年Clinical Oncology的最高影響指數為4.126。

最低影響指數 IF

近十年Clinical Oncology的最低影響指數為2.072。

影響指數 累積成長率
影響指數 累積成長率

近十年Clinical Oncology的影響指數累積成長率為99.1%。

影響指數 平均成長率
影響指數 平均成長率

近十年Clinical Oncology的影響指數平均成長率為9.9%。


子領域 四分位數 排名 百分比
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging Q1 48/288

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging 83%

Oncology Q2 104/340

Oncology 69%


· 在Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging研究領域,Clinical Oncology的四分位數為Q1。Clinical Oncology在Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging研究類別的288種相關期刊中排名第48。在Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging研究領域,Clinical Oncology的排名百分位約為83%。
· 在Oncology研究領域,Clinical Oncology的四分位數為Q2。Clinical Oncology在Oncology研究類別的340種相關期刊中排名第104。在Oncology研究領域,Clinical Oncology的排名百分位約為69%。

Clinical Oncology Impact Factor 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年的影響指數為4.126
· Clinical Oncology 2019-2020年的影響指數為3.113
· Clinical Oncology 2018-2019年的影響指數為3.047
· Clinical Oncology 2017-2018年的影響指數為3.06
· Clinical Oncology 2016-2017年的影響指數為3.236
· Clinical Oncology 2015-2016年的影響指數為3.212
· Clinical Oncology 2014-2015年的影響指數為3.398
· Clinical Oncology 2013-2014年的影響指數為2.826
· Clinical Oncology 2012-2013年的影響指數為2.858
· Clinical Oncology 2011-2012年的影響指數為2.072


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

Clinical Oncology的ISSN(Online)是 1433-2981 . 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。

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。

Clinical Oncology | 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。

Scientific Writng Keywords