British journal of anaesthesia | Journament

Journal Ranking

#2891 / 33,958
📉 Poor
Overall Score
39.3/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
15
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
36
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 3 weeks ago

British journal of anaesthesia

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
ncbi ulakbim sci
Short Name Br J Anaesth
Abbreviated Name br j anaesth
ISSN 1471-6771
Aim and Scope
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/british-journal-of-anaesthesia
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (48 total)

2014
assessment of high school principal’s transformational leadership
;Nahiyah Jaidi Faraz
Vol. 15 , No. 1 , pp. -
512 views Abstract
2018
Adoption of Lung Protective ventilation IN patients undergoing Emergency laparotomy: the ALPINE study. A prospective multicentre observational study.
Watson, X;Chereshneva, M;Odor, P M;Chis Ster, I;, ;Cecconi, M;
Vol. 121 , No. 4 , pp. 909-917
445 views DOI Abstract
2020
Challenging gender stereotypes and advancing inclusive leadership in the operating theatre.
Minehart, Rebecca D;Foldy, Erica Gabrielle;Long, Jennifer A;Weller, Jennifer M;
411 views DOI Abstract
2016
Patient reported outcome of adult perioperative anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional observational study.
Walker, E M K;Bell, M;Cook, T M;Grocott, M P W;Moonesinghe, S R;, ;, ;
Vol. 117 , No. 6 , pp. 758-766
365 views DOI Abstract
2020
Potentiation by sevoflurane of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block is greater in older than younger adult patients: a randomised controlled trial.
Takagi, Shunichi;Kitajima, Osamu;Yamamoto, Mai;Matsui, Miki;Suzuki, Takahiro;
353 views DOI
2019
Chemokine receptor antagonists enhance the antinociceptive activity of oxycodone and meperidine on incisional pain in rats.
Inan, Saadet;Watson, Mia N;Doura, Menahem;Tallarida, Christopher S;Meissler, Joseph J;Chen, Xiaohong;Geller, Ellen B;Cowan, Alan;Rawls, Scott M;Eisenstein, Toby K;Adler, Martin W;
Vol. 122 , No. 6 , pp. e213-e215
334 views DOI
2020
Effect of dexmedetomidine on acute kidney injury after aortic surgery: a single-centre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial.
Soh, Sarah;Shim, Jae-Kwang;Song, Jong-Wook;Bae, Jae-Chan;Kwak, Young-Lan;
333 views DOI Abstract
2020
Intraoperative ventilation strategies to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Deng, Qi-Wen;Tan, Wen-Cheng;Zhao, Bing-Cheng;Wen, Shi-Hong;Shen, Jian-Tong;Xu, Miao;
333 views DOI Abstract
2020
Socioeconomic deprivation and mortality after emergency laparotomy: an observational epidemiological study.
Poulton, Thomas E;Moonesinghe, Ramani;Raine, Rosalind;Martin, Peter;, ;
Vol. 124 , No. 1 , pp. 73-83
328 views DOI Abstract
2019
Can anaesthetic-analgesic technique during cancer surgery of curative intent influence recurrence or metastasis? An update.
Buggy, Donal J;Wall, Tom;
Vol. 123 , No. 6 , pp. e525-e526
317 views DOI
View All 48 Articles
39
Overall
Poor
31
15
30
40
36
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

39.3/100

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

30.7/100

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

35.5/100

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.