european journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the european association for cardio-thoracic surgery | Journament

Journal Ranking

#259 / 33,951
📊 Below Average
Overall Score
42.8/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
35
Timeliness
85
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
35
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 21 hours ago

european journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the european association for cardio-thoracic surgery

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
Short Name eur j cardiothorac surg
Abbreviated Name eur j cardiothorac surg
ISSN 1873-734X
Aim and Scope
URL http://ejcts.oxfordjournals.org
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (24 total)

2019
Unifocalization cannot rely exclusively on native pulmonary arteries: the importance of recruitment of major aortopulmonary collaterals in 249 cases†.
Barron, David J;Kutty, Ramesh S;Stickley, John;Stümper, Oliver;Botha, Phil;Khan, Natasha E;Jones, Timothy J;Drury, Nigel E;Brawn, William J;
368 views DOI Abstract
2019
Impact of non-respect of SYNTAX score II recommendation for surgery in patients with left main coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: an EXCEL substudy.
Modolo, Rodrigo;Chichareon, Ply;van Klaveren, David;Dressler, Ovidiu;Zhang, Yiran;Sabik, Joseph F;Onuma, Yoshinobu;Kappetein, Arie Pieter;Stone, Gregg W;Serruys, Patrick W;
326 views DOI Abstract
2019
Tetralogy of Fallot and abnormal coronary artery: use of a prosthetic conduit is outdated.
Pontailler, Margaux;Bernard, Chloé;Gaudin, Régis;Moreau de Bellaing, Anne;Mostefa Kara, Mansour;Haydar, Ayman;Barbanti, Claudio;Bonnet, Damien;Vouhé, Pascal;Raisky, Olivier;
Vol. 56 , No. 1 , pp. 94-100
324 views DOI Abstract
2019
Elastomeric cardiopatch scaffold for myocardial repair and ventricular support.
Chachques, Juan Carlos;Lila, Nermine;Soler-Botija, Carolina;Martinez-Ramos, Cristina;Valles, Ana;Autret, Gwennhael;Perier, Marie-Cecile;Mirochnik, Nicolas;Monleon-Pradas, Manuel;Bayes-Genis, Antoni;Semino, Carlos E;
293 views DOI Abstract
2008
designing semiconductor heterostructures with python
;
Vol. 3 , No. 2 , pp. -
265 views Abstract
2010
python for collective intelligence and collaborative filtering
;
Vol. 5 , No. 3 , pp. -
234 views Abstract
2008
letters to the python papers
;
Vol. 2 , No. 3 , pp. 14-17
214 views
2008
embedding a python interpreter into your program
;
Vol. 3 , No. 2 , pp. -
204 views
2018
Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)
Tim Batchelor, Neil Rasburn, Etienne Abdelnour‐Berchtold, Alessandro Brunelli, Robert J. Cerfolio, Michel González, Olle Ljungqvist, René Horsleben Petersen, Wanda M. Popescu, Peter Slinger, Babu Naidu
14 views DOI Abstract
2018
2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Miguel Sousa‐Uva, Franz‐Josef Neumann, Anders Ahlsson, Fernándo Alfonso, Adrian Banning, Umberto Benedetto, Robert A. Byrne, Jean‐Philippe Collet, Volkmar Falk, Stuart J. Head, Peter Jüni, Adnan Kastrati, Ákos Koller, Steen Dalby Kristensen, Josef Niebauer, Dimitrios Richter, Petar Seferovic, Dirk Sibbing, Giulio Stefanini, Stephan Windecker, Rashmi Yadav, M. Zembala, William Wijns, David Glineur, Victor Aboyans, Stephan Achenbach, Stefan Agewall, Felicita Andreotti, Emanuele Barbato, Andreas Baumbach, James M. Brophy, Héctor Bueno, Patrick A. Calvert, Davide Capodanno, Piroze Davierwala, Victoria Delgado, Dariusz Dudek, Nick Freemantle, Christian Funck‐Brentano, Oliver Gaemperli, Stephan Gielen, Martine Gilard, Bülent Görenek, Joerg Haasenritter, Michael Haude, Borja Ibáñez, Bernard Iung, Anders Jeppsson, Demosthenes G. Katritsis, Juhani Knuuti, Philippe Kolh, Adelino Leite‐Moreira, Lars H. Lund, Francesco Maisano, Julinda Mehilli, Bernhard Metzler, Gilles Montalescot, Duilio Pagano, Anna Sonia Petronio, Massimo Piepoli, Bogdan A. Popescu, Rafael Sádaba, Е. V. Shlyakhto, Sigmund Silber, Iain A. Simpson, David Sparv, Giuseppe Tavilla, Hölger Thiele, Petr Toušek, Éric Van Belle, Pascal Vranckx, Adam Witkowski, José Luis Zamorano, Marco Roffi, Stephan Windecker, Victor Aboyans, Stefan Agewall, Emanuele Barbato, Héctor Bueno, António Coca, Jean‐Philippe Collet, Ioan Mircea Coman, Verónica Dean, Victoria Delgado, Donna Fitzsimons, Oliver Gaemperli, Gerhard Hindricks, Bernard Iung, Peter Jüni, Hugo A. Katus, Juhani Knuuti, Patrizio Lancellotti, Christophe Leclercq, Theresa A. McDonagh, Massimo Piepoli, Piotr Ponikowski, Dimitrios Richter, Marco Roffi, Е. V. Shlyakhto, Miguel Sousa‐Uva
12 views DOI
View All 24 Articles
43
Overall
Below Average
31
35
30
40
35
85
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

42.8/100

Tier: Below Average

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

30.8/100

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

35.0/100

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

35.0/100

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

85.0/100

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.