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





-3.3 %




Endocrine Reviews

Endocrine Reviews 2019-2020 年的影響指數為14.661。

Endocrine Reviews Impact Factor
最高影響指數 IF

近十年Endocrine Reviews的最高影響指數為21.059。

最低影響指數 IF

近十年Endocrine Reviews的最低影響指數為14.661。

影響指數 累積成長率
影響指數 累積成長率

近十年Endocrine Reviews的影響指數累積成長率為-26.4%。

影響指數 平均成長率
影響指數 平均成長率

近十年Endocrine Reviews的影響指數平均成長率為-2.9%。


子領域 四分位數 排名 百分比
Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Q1 5/217

Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism 97%

Endocrinology Q1 4/118

Endocrinology 97%


· 在Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism研究領域,Endocrine Reviews的四分位數為Q1。Endocrine Reviews在Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism研究類別的217種相關期刊中排名第5。在Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism研究領域,Endocrine Reviews的排名百分位約為97%。
· 在Endocrinology研究領域,Endocrine Reviews的四分位數為Q1。Endocrine Reviews在Endocrinology研究類別的118種相關期刊中排名第4。在Endocrinology研究領域,Endocrine Reviews的排名百分位約為97%。

Endocrine Reviews Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Endocrine Reviews Impact Factor Predition System

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

Predict Check All Preditions






2019-2020 14.661
2018-2019 15.167
2017-2018 15.545
2016-2017 15.745
2015-2016 14.898
2014-2015 21.059
2013-2014 19.358
2012-2013 14.873
2011-2012 19.929

· Endocrine Reviews 2019-2020年的影響指數為14.661
· Endocrine Reviews 2018-2019年的影響指數為15.167
· Endocrine Reviews 2017-2018年的影響指數為15.545
· Endocrine Reviews 2016-2017年的影響指數為15.745
· Endocrine Reviews 2015-2016年的影響指數為14.898
· Endocrine Reviews 2014-2015年的影響指數為21.059
· Endocrine Reviews 2013-2014年的影響指數為19.358
· Endocrine Reviews 2012-2013年的影響指數為14.873
· Endocrine Reviews 2011-2012年的影響指數為19.929


出版數量 引用數量
出版数量 引用数量
1979 0 6
1980 22 13
1981 23 212
1982 17 488
1983 21 903
1984 22 1274
1985 19 1639
1986 30 2048
1987 24 2689
1988 25 2962
1989 29 3454
1990 26 4038
1991 25 4372
1992 38 4753
1993 46 5052
1994 41 5531
1995 32 6757
1996 35 7602
1997 42 9718
1998 41 11511
1999 43 12221
2000 34 12660
2001 33 14647
2002 41 15466
2003 36 16238
2004 32 17427
2005 40 19808
2006 35 21921
2007 30 22800
2008 38 24108
2009 43 25521
2010 128 25920
2011 40 26987
2012 37 27699
2013 32 28494
2014 67 27630
2015 26 24894
2016 29 22447
2017 29 21399
2018 41 18050
2019 53 19546
2020 42 23562
2021 1 1945

· Endocrine Reviews於1979年發表了0篇报告,並取得6篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1980年發表了22篇报告,並取得13篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1981年發表了23篇报告,並取得212篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1982年發表了17篇报告,並取得488篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1983年發表了21篇报告,並取得903篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1984年發表了22篇报告,並取得1274篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1985年發表了19篇报告,並取得1639篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1986年發表了30篇报告,並取得2048篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1987年發表了24篇报告,並取得2689篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1988年發表了25篇报告,並取得2962篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1989年發表了29篇报告,並取得3454篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1990年發表了26篇报告,並取得4038篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1991年發表了25篇报告,並取得4372篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1992年發表了38篇报告,並取得4753篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1993年發表了46篇报告,並取得5052篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1994年發表了41篇报告,並取得5531篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1995年發表了32篇报告,並取得6757篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1996年發表了35篇报告,並取得7602篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1997年發表了42篇报告,並取得9718篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1998年發表了41篇报告,並取得11511篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於1999年發表了43篇报告,並取得12221篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2000年發表了34篇报告,並取得12660篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2001年發表了33篇报告,並取得14647篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2002年發表了41篇报告,並取得15466篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2003年發表了36篇报告,並取得16238篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2004年發表了32篇报告,並取得17427篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2005年發表了40篇报告,並取得19808篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2006年發表了35篇报告,並取得21921篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2007年發表了30篇报告,並取得22800篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2008年發表了38篇报告,並取得24108篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2009年發表了43篇报告,並取得25521篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2010年發表了128篇报告,並取得25920篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2011年發表了40篇报告,並取得26987篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2012年發表了37篇报告,並取得27699篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2013年發表了32篇报告,並取得28494篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2014年發表了67篇报告,並取得27630篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2015年發表了26篇报告,並取得24894篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2016年發表了29篇报告,並取得22447篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2017年發表了29篇报告,並取得21399篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2018年發表了41篇报告,並取得18050篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2019年發表了53篇报告,並取得19546篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2020年發表了42篇报告,並取得23562篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews於2021年發表了1篇报告,並取得1945篇文獻引用。
· Endocrine Reviews的總出版物為1488。
· Endocrine Reviews的總引用數為546412。

Endocrine Reviews
Endocrine Reviews | Academic Accelerator - About the Journal


Endocrine Reviews publishes bimonthly, including concise timely reviews updating key mechanistic and clinical concepts, as well as more comprehensive, authoritative review articles spanning both experimental and clinical endocrinology themes. Endocrine Reviews will consider topics that inform clinical practice based on emerging and established evidence from clinical research as well as reviews of advances in endocrine science emanating from studies of cell biology, immunology, pharmacology, genetics, molecular biology, neuroscience, reproductive medicine, and pediatric endocrinology. Endocrine Reviews is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal for review articles in endocrinology published by the Endocrine Society. Its 2016 impact factor is 15.745.According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2016 impact factor of 0.506.


Endocrine Reviews的ISSN是 0163-769X 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)

Endocrine Reviews的ISSN(Online)是 1945-7189 . 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。

The Endocrine Society

Endocrine Reviews的出版社是 The Endocrine Society


Endocrine Reviews publishes reports Bimonthly .

1980 - Present

Endocrine Reviews的出版年度包含 1980 - Present .


Endocrine 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 Endocrine Reviews. Endocrine 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 Endocrine Reviews is English .

United States

The publisher of Endocrine Reviews is The Endocrine Society , 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 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 Endocrine Reviews Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Endocrine 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 Endocrine 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。

Endocrine 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。