journal of orthopaedic surgery and research | Journament

Journal Ranking

#2642 / 33,952
📉 Poor
Overall Score
38.4/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
15
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
35
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 2 weeks ago

journal of orthopaedic surgery and research

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
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
scopus ncbi doaj ulakbim sci
Short Name j orthop surg res
Abbreviated Name j orthop surg res
ISSN 1749-799X
Aim and Scope
URL https://link.springer.com/journal/13018
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (26 total)

2019
A comparative study of the efficacy of ultrasonics and extracorporeal shock wave in the treatment of tennis elbow: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Yan, Chenchen;Xiong, Yuan;Chen, Lang;Endo, Yori;Hu, Liangcong;Liu, Mengfei;Liu, Jing;Xue, Hang;Abududilibaier, Abudula;Mi, Bobin;Liu, Guohui;
Vol. 14 , No. 1 , pp. 248
416 views DOI Abstract
2020
Is quality of YouTube content on Bankart lesion and its surgical treatment adequate?
Akpolat, Ahmet Onur;Kurdal, Demet Pepele;
Vol. 15 , No. 1 , pp. 78
403 views DOI Abstract
2020
Research hotspots and trends of bone defects based on Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis.
Lin, Haixiong;Wang, Xiaotong;Huang, Minling;Li, Zige;Shen, Zhen;Feng, Junjie;Chen, Huamei;Wu, Jingjing;Gao, Junyan;Wen, Zheng;Huang, Feng;Jiang, Ziwei;
Vol. 15 , No. 1 , pp. 463
357 views DOI Abstract
2019
Biomechanical influence of lateral meniscal allograft transplantation on knee joint mechanics during the gait cycle
Koh, Y.
Vol. 14 , pp. 0-0
352 views DOI
2019
Is it difficult to obtain inter-observer agreement in the measurement of the beta angle in ultrasound evaluation of the paediatric hip?
Karakus, Ozgun;Karaman, Ozgur;Sari, Ahmet Sinan;Orak, Mehmet Mufit;Muratli, Hasan Hilmi;
Vol. 14 , No. 1 , pp. 221
343 views DOI Abstract
2017
An updated meta-analysis of the asporin gene D-repeat in knee osteoarthritis: Effects of gender and ethnicity
Liu, R.
Vol. 12 , pp. 0-0
327 views DOI Abstract
2020
Matching actual treatment with patient administration-route-preference improves analgesic response among acute low back pain patients-a randomized prospective trial.
Shani, Adi;Granot, Michal;Mochalov, Gleb;Raviv, Bennidor;Rahamimov, Nimrod;
Vol. 15 , No. 1 , pp. 85
319 views DOI Abstract
2019
Autologous bone marrow expanded mesenchymal stem cells in patellar tendinopathy: Protocol for a phase I/II, single-centre, randomized with active control PRP, double-blinded clinical trial
Rodas, G.
Vol. 14 , pp. 0-0
315 views DOI
2019
The prototype BS-II for computer measurement of biomechanical characteristics of the human cadaverous lumbar spine.
Janák, Vladislav;Bartoněk, Luděk;Hrabálek, Lumír;Keprt, Jiří;Charamza, Jiří;
Vol. 14 , No. 1 , pp. 454
311 views DOI Abstract
2016
detection of adverse reaction to drugs in elderly patients through predictive modeling
;Rafael San-Miguel Carrasco
Vol. 3 , No. 6 , pp. 52-56
298 views DOI Abstract
View All 26 Articles
38
Overall
Poor
31
15
30
40
35
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

38.4/100

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

30.6/100

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

34.5/100

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.