Indexed in Journament

it architect

EN

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
36.2 / 100
Journament Score
Poor
Ranked #5,914 of 29,312 scored journals (34,012 indexed)
34 Articles
Scores higher than 79.8% of scored journals
050100
The Journament Score is computed from platform statistics — reader engagement, accessibility, publication timeliness, keyword breadth, community impact and content distribution — into a single 0–100 figure, recalculated as new articles and metadata are indexed. Dimensions that cannot be measured for this journal are excluded rather than estimated. It is independent of the paid AI Quality Analysis, which never affects this score or the ranking. Full methodology →

About This Journal

Short Name it architect
Abbreviated Name it architect

Quality Profile

5 of 12 dimensions measured
Engagement 30.9
Timeliness 0.0
Innovation 61.5
Community Impact 2.1
Content Distribution 77.7
This journal Average of scored journals
Platform statistics — the free Journament Score AI Quality Analysis — separate paid product, ranks nothing

7 of the 12 dimensions could not be measured for this journal. They are left out entirely rather than plotted as zero, and with 5 dimensions measured there is not enough of a profile to draw as a shape.

Show the numbers
Journament quality dimensions for it architect
Dimension This journal Corpus average
Engagement 30.9 30.4
Accessibility 20.4
Timeliness 0.0 5.8
Diversity 24.4
Innovation 61.5 25.7
Community Impact 2.1 5.8
Content Distribution 77.7 88.6
Content Quality 55.5
Ethics & Transparency 40.2
Editorial Standards 33.4
Publication Regularity 53.2
Geographic Reach 30.8

Publications Per Year

Articles (34)

2013
use of a combined retroperitoneoscopic and transperitoneal laparoscopic technique for the management of renal cell carcinoma with level i tumor thrombi
Vol. 9 , No. 4 , pp. 168-172
423 views DOI Abstract
2011
<i>ex-vivo</i> training model for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery
Vol. 7 , No. 1 , pp. 104-108
368 views Abstract
2018
acute pancreatitis as an unusual early post-operative complication following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
Vol. 14 , No. 2 , pp. 164-167
353 views DOI Abstract
2016
comparison of weight loss outcomes 1 year after sleeve gastrectomy and roux-en-y gastric bypass in patients aged above 50 years
Vol. 12 , No. 3 , pp. 220-225
325 views DOI Abstract
2018
a novel prototype 3/5 laparoscopic needle driver: a validation study with conventional laparoscopic needle driver
Vol. 14 , No. 1 , pp. 83-86
321 views DOI Abstract
2010
laparoscopic splenectomy in patients of &#946; thalassemia: our experience
Vol. 6 , No. 3 , pp. 70-75
312 views Abstract
2010
boerhaave&#x2032;s syndrome: thoracolaparoscopic approach
Vol. 6 , No. 3 , pp. 76-79
286 views Abstract
2016
minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery: are we talking about apples and oranges?
Vol. 12 , No. 3 , pp. 302-303
276 views DOI
2014
laparoscopic repair of gastro-duodenal fistula secondary to band erosion
Vol. 10 , No. 4 , pp. 216-218
274 views DOI Abstract
2010
2018
acute pancreatitis as an unusual early post-operative complication following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
Vol. 14 , No. 2 , pp. 164-167
353 views DOI Abstract
2018
evolution of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies at a single institution
Vol. 14 , No. 2 , pp. 140-145
167 views DOI Abstract
2018
a novel prototype 3/5 laparoscopic needle driver: a validation study with conventional laparoscopic needle driver
Vol. 14 , No. 1 , pp. 83-86
321 views DOI Abstract
2017
incidence of incisional hernia after single-incision laparoscopic surgery in children
Vol. 13 , No. 3 , pp. 240-241
186 views DOI
2016
efficacy and safety of a new single-port model for appendectomy: experimental study on swine
Vol. 12 , No. 2 , pp. 129-134
243 views DOI Abstract
2016
comparison of weight loss outcomes 1 year after sleeve gastrectomy and roux-en-y gastric bypass in patients aged above 50 years
Vol. 12 , No. 3 , pp. 220-225
325 views DOI Abstract
2016
minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery: are we talking about apples and oranges?
Vol. 12 , No. 3 , pp. 302-303
276 views DOI
2014
single site and conventional totally extraperitoneal techniques for uncomplicated inguinal hernia repair: a comparative study
Vol. 10 , No. 4 , pp. 197-201
224 views DOI Abstract
2014
laparoscopic repair of gastro-duodenal fistula secondary to band erosion
Vol. 10 , No. 4 , pp. 216-218
274 views DOI Abstract
Journament Score
36.2/100 · Poor
Ranked #5,914 of 29,312 scored
(34,012 journals indexed)
Platform Statistics
AI Quality Analysis
Separate paid analysis — does not affect ranking.

Overall Quality Score

36.2/100

Tier: Poor

The Journament Overall Quality Score is a comprehensive metric that evaluates academic journals across multiple dimensions including engagement, accessibility, diversity, innovation, and community impact.

This score helps researchers, institutions, and publishers understand the holistic quality and impact of a journal beyond traditional metrics.

Engagement Score

30.9/100

Measures user interactions, views, citations, and community involvement with this journal's content.

Higher engagement scores indicate that the journal's content is actively being read, cited, and discussed within the academic community.

Accessibility Score

Not yet measured

Evaluates how easily researchers can access journal content, including open access availability, ISSN registration, and indexing.

This metric considers factors such as paywalls, open access policies, and availability across different academic databases and search engines.

Diversity Score

Not yet measured

Assesses geographic and institutional diversity of authors, editorial board composition, and topic breadth.

A diverse journal publishes work from various geographic regions, institutions, and covers a broad range of topics within its field.

Innovation Score

61.5/100

Evaluates research novelty, interdisciplinary work, and emerging topics based on AI analysis of article abstracts.

This score reflects how much the journal publishes cutting-edge research, explores new methodologies, and bridges different academic disciplines.

Community Impact Score

2.1/100

Measures scholarly contribution and real-world applications of published research.

This metric evaluates how the journal's research translates into practical applications, policy changes, and benefits to society beyond academia.

Timeliness Score

0.0/100

Evaluates recent publication activity, publication frequency, and currency of research topics.

Higher scores indicate consistent publishing schedules and timely coverage of current research trends.

Content Distribution

77.7/100

Measures how evenly reader attention spreads across the journal's articles, using the Gini coefficient of article clicks.

Higher scores mean readership is distributed across many articles rather than concentrated on one or two.

Ethics & Transparency Score

Not yet measured

Research Integrity (10% weight)

Assesses COPE standards compliance, ethical considerations in research, transparency in methodologies, and reproducibility practices.

This metric ensures the journal maintains high ethical standards and promotes transparent, trustworthy research.

Content Quality Score

Not yet measured

Academic Rigor (20% weight) + Methodology Quality (12%)

Evaluates research methodology soundness, statistical rigor, theoretical framework strength, appropriateness of research methods, data quality, and clarity & readability.

This comprehensive metric ensures published research meets the highest academic standards.

Editorial Diversity Score

Not yet measured

Author Diversity + Interdisciplinary Value (8%)

Measures geographic diversity of authors, institutional variety, editorial board composition, and cross-disciplinary connections.

Diverse editorial teams bring varied perspectives and reduce bias in academic publishing.

Publication Regularity Score

Not yet measured

Assesses consistency of publication schedule, frequency stability, and predictable output patterns.

Regular publication schedules indicate reliable journal operations and consistent workflow management.

Geographic Reach Score

Not yet measured

Evaluates international author representation, global readership distribution, and cross-border research collaboration.

Wide geographic reach indicates global impact and international recognition of the journal's research.