Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
最新影響指數 - 實時趨勢預測 & 期刊影響力排名





-8.1 %




Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2019-2020 年的影響指數為5.541。

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor
最高影響指數 IF

近十年Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的最高影響指數為6.028。

最低影響指數 IF

近十年Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的最低影響指數為1.6。

影響指數 累積成長率
影響指數 累積成長率

近十年Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的影響指數累積成長率為89.6%。

影響指數 平均成長率
影響指數 平均成長率

近十年Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的影響指數平均成長率為10.0%。


子領域 四分位數 排名 百分比
Clinical Psychology Q1 5/275

Clinical Psychology 98%


· 在Clinical Psychology研究領域,Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的四分位數為Q1。Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice在Clinical Psychology研究類別的275種相關期刊中排名第5。在Clinical Psychology研究領域,Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的排名百分位約為98%。

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor Predition System

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor Prediction System is now online. You can start share your valuable insights with the community.

Predict Check All Preditions






2019-2020 5.541
2018-2019 6.028
2017-2018 4.95
2016-2017 2.38
2015-2016 2.113
2014-2015 1.6
2013-2014 3.245
2012-2013 4.4
2011-2012 2.922

· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2019-2020年的影響指數為5.541
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2018-2019年的影響指數為6.028
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2017-2018年的影響指數為4.95
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2016-2017年的影響指數為2.38
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2015-2016年的影響指數為2.113
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2014-2015年的影響指數為1.6
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2013-2014年的影響指數為3.245
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2012-2013年的影響指數為4.4
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2011-2012年的影響指數為2.922


出版數量 引用數量
出版数量 引用数量
1994 19 11
1995 29 81
1996 39 233
1997 33 303
1998 42 508
1999 29 548
2000 4 800
2001 4 1017
2002 11 1270
2003 12 1468
2004 0 1972
2005 4 2691
2006 380 3745
2007 47 3658
2008 43 4108
2009 50 4924
2010 39 5096
2011 43 5789
2012 33 6404
2013 36 7370
2014 30 7389
2015 37 7820
2016 44 7048
2017 35 7013
2018 45 5540
2019 30 6551
2020 77 8137
2021 0 546

· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於1994年發表了19篇报告,並取得11篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於1995年發表了29篇报告,並取得81篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於1996年發表了39篇报告,並取得233篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於1997年發表了33篇报告,並取得303篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於1998年發表了42篇报告,並取得508篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於1999年發表了29篇报告,並取得548篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2000年發表了4篇报告,並取得800篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2001年發表了4篇报告,並取得1017篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2002年發表了11篇报告,並取得1270篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2003年發表了12篇报告,並取得1468篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2004年發表了0篇报告,並取得1972篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2005年發表了4篇报告,並取得2691篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2006年發表了380篇报告,並取得3745篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2007年發表了47篇报告,並取得3658篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2008年發表了43篇报告,並取得4108篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2009年發表了50篇报告,並取得4924篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2010年發表了39篇报告,並取得5096篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2011年發表了43篇报告,並取得5789篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2012年發表了33篇报告,並取得6404篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2013年發表了36篇报告,並取得7370篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2014年發表了30篇报告,並取得7389篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2015年發表了37篇报告,並取得7820篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2016年發表了44篇报告,並取得7048篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2017年發表了35篇报告,並取得7013篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2018年發表了45篇报告,並取得5540篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2019年發表了30篇报告,並取得6551篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2020年發表了77篇报告,並取得8137篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice於2021年發表了0篇报告,並取得546篇文獻引用。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的總出版物為1195。
· Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的總引用數為102040。

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal


Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice presents cutting-edge developments in the science and practice of clinical psychology and related mental health fields by publishing scholarly articles, primarily involving narrative and systematic reviews as well as meta-analyses related to assessment, intervention, and service delivery. The journal also publishes invited Commentaries that provide additional perspectives regarding the topics of such reviews. It is the official publication of APA Division 12, the Society of Clinical Psychology. The journal publishes papers from all theoretical perspectives in clinical psychology and considers all methods and approaches to research. Manuscripts covering theory, psychopathology, assessment, psychotherapy, process research, outcome research, professional issues, service delivery, education and training, related ethical issues, and similar topics are appropriate for the Journal. Occasionally, empirical papers primarily concerned with broad education and/or clinical research are published, if directly related to the Society's mission and projects. Theoretical/clinical descriptions without a sound empirical basis are not appropriate for the journal. Manuscripts are expected to end with a clear summary of what is known on the topic, as well as a section on the concrete and practical application of that knowledge in clinical practice. The Journal is always seeking suggestions for special issues or sections that contain articles related to a similar topic. None


Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的ISSN是 0969-5893 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 Psychology: Science and Practice的ISSN(Online)是 1468-2850 . 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。


Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的出版社是 Wiley-Blackwell


Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice publishes reports Quarterly .

1994 - Present

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice的出版年度包含 1994 - Present .


Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice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 Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 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 Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is English .

United States

The publisher of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice is Wiley-Blackwell , 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.

Clinical Psychology: Science and 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 Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Clinical Psychology: Science and 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 Clinical Psychology: Science and 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 Psychology: Science and Practice | 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。