bulletin des sociétés chimiques belges | Journament

Journal Ranking

#7594 / 33,971
📉 Poor
Overall Score
37.6/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
30
Accessibility
15
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
34
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 1 month ago

bulletin des sociétés chimiques belges

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
Certificate of Indexing
Quality Widget - Embed on Your Website

Display your journal's quality scores on your website with our beautiful, self-contained widget. Choose between two embedding methods below.

One-Line JavaScript Embed (Recommended):
Advantages:
  • ✅ Simpler integration (just one line of code)
  • ✅ Better SEO (content is in same DOM)
  • ✅ No iframe limitations
  • ✅ Fully self-contained (no dependencies)
  • ✅ Works on any website regardless of CSS framework
  • ✅ Clickable badges link to full journal page
iFrame Embed Code:
Limitations:
  • ⚠️ Display-only (scores not clickable due to iframe constraints)
  • ⚠️ May have SEO limitations
  • ⚠️ Potential CORS/CSP issues on some websites
Preview:
Indexings
Short Name bulletin des sociétés chimiques belges
Abbreviated Name bulletin des sociétés chimiques belges
ISSN
Aim and Scope
URL
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (65 total)

2014
between pain and pleasure: pregnant women′s knowledge and preferences for pain relief in labor, a pilot study from zaria, northern nigeria
;Elizabeth O Ogboli-Nwasor;Sunday E Adaji
Vol. 8 , No. 5 , pp. 20-24
475 views DOI Abstract
2011
preanesthetic medication in children: a comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam
;Ashraf M Ghali;Abdul Kader Mahfouz;Maher Al-Bahrani
Vol. 5 , No. 4 , pp. 387-391
426 views DOI Abstract
2014
effect of clonidine versus dexmedetomidine on pain control after laparoscopic gastric sleeve: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study
;Zoher M Naja;Rania Khatib;Fouad M Ziade;Georges Moussa;Zeina Z Naja;Ahmad Salah Eddine Naja;Saleh Kanawati
Vol. 8 , No. 5 , pp. 57-62
414 views DOI Abstract
2015
evaluating the quality of intravenous regional anesthesia following adding dexamethasone to lidocaine
;Ebrahim Hassani;Alireza Mahoori;Mir Mousa Aghdashi;Habibollah Pirnejad
Vol. 9 , No. 4 , pp. 418-421
401 views DOI Abstract
2013
survival rate in patients after sudden cardiac arrest at the university hospital of northern norway treated with or without opioids: a retrospective evaluation
;Vladimir Kuklin
Vol. 7 , No. 3 , pp. 310-314
401 views DOI Abstract
2013
hemiarthroplasty in high risk elderly patient under epidural anesthesia with 0.75% ropivacaine-fentanyl versus 0.5% bupivacaine-fentanyl: clinical trial
;Bhawna Rastogi;Kumkum Gupta;Avinash Rastogi;Prashant K Gupta;Apoorva B Singhal;Ivesh Singh
Vol. 7 , No. 2 , pp. 142-145
352 views DOI Abstract
2017
ultrasound-guided multilevel paravertebral block versus local anesthesia for medical thoracoscopy
;Maha A Abo-Zeid;Mohammad M Elgamal;Asem A Hewidy;Amro A Moawad;Alaa Eldin Adel Elmaddawy
Vol. 11 , No. 4 , pp. 442-448
343 views DOI Abstract
2014
postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis: a comparative study of ondansetron, granisetron and granisetron and dexamethasone combination after modified radical mastectomy
;Pushplata Gupta;Shilpi Jain
Vol. 8 , No. 5 , pp. 67-71
331 views DOI Abstract
2013
comparative evaluation of two doses of tranexamic acid used prophylactically in anemic parturients for lower segment cesarean section: a double-blind randomized case control prospective trial
;Upasana Goswami;Sushmita Sarangi;Sunali Gupta;Savita Babbar
Vol. 7 , No. 4 , pp. 427-431
317 views DOI Abstract
2011
accidental five fold overdose of propofol for induction in a 38-days-old infant undergoing emergency bilateral inguinal hernia repair
;Mahin Seyedhejazi;Ghafur Abafattash;Reza Taheri
Vol. 5 , No. 4 , pp. 417-418
312 views DOI Abstract
View All 65 Articles
38
Overall
Poor
30
15
30
40
34
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

37.6/100

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

30.3/100

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

15.0/100

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

30.0/100

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

40.0/100

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

34.0/100

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

50.0/100

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

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

Ethics & Transparency Score

0.0/100

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

0.0/100

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

0.0/100

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

0.0/100

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

0.0/100

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.