journal of evaluation in clinical practice | Journament

Journal Ranking

#1091 / 33,971
📊 Below Average
Overall Score
42.7/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
35
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
37
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 1 week ago

journal of evaluation in clinical practice

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 ulakbim
Short Name j eval clin pract
Abbreviated Name j eval clin pract
ISSN 1365-2753
Aim and Scope
URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/13652753
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (15 total)

2019
Successful use of "Choice Architecture" and "Nudge Theory" in a quality improvement initiative of analgesia administration after Caesarean section.
Shakespeare, Tim;Fehlberg, Michelle;Slejko, Tiffany;Taylor, Julie;Srbinovska, Irina;Bolsin, Stephen;
Vol. 25 , No. 1 , pp. 125-129
364 views DOI Abstract
2019
Collaborating with individuals with lived experience to adapt CANMAT clinical depression guidelines into a patient treatment guide: The CHOICE-D co-design process.
Fonseka, Trehani M;Pong, Janice T;Kcomt, Andrew;Kennedy, Sidney H;Parikh, Sagar V;
363 views DOI Abstract
2019
Patient safety culture in Oman: A national study.
Al Nadabi, Waleed;Faisal, Muhammad;Mohammed, Mohammed Amin;
335 views DOI Abstract
2018
Length of stay by uncomplicated diabetes bariatric surgery patients: A laparoscopic adjustable banding versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.
Baffoe, Seth K A;Rohrer, James E;Goes, James;
313 views DOI Abstract
2020
Ethics in contemporary health care management and medical education.
Balak, Naci;Broekman, Marike L D;Mathiesen, Tiit;
301 views DOI Abstract
2019
Moral entrepreneurship, the power-knowledge nexus, and the Cochrane "crisis".
Greenhalgh, Trisha;Ozbilgin, Mustafa F;Prainsack, Barbara;Shaw, Sara;
283 views DOI Abstract
2019
Association of alprazolam with major cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension.
Yeh, Chao-Bin;Tsai, Ming-Che;Teng, Ying-Hock;Ku, Min-Sho;Huang, Jing-Yang;Wang, Bo-Yuan;Tai, Chia-Ling;Kornelius, Edy;Ho, Sai-Wai;
280 views DOI Abstract
2019
Role of risk attitude and time preference in preventive aspirin use adherence.
Zhu, Jingrong;Shi, Yunfeng;Li, Jinlin;Zhang, Zengbo;
268 views DOI Abstract
2002
Democratic deficit and communication hyper-inflation in health care systems
Andras, P.
Vol. 8 , pp. 291-297
264 views DOI
2013
Feedback as a strategy to change behaviour: the devil is in the details.
Larson, Elaine L;Patel, Sameer J;Evans, David;Saiman, Lisa;
Vol. 19 , No. 2 , pp. 230-4
261 views DOI Abstract
View All 15 Articles
43
Overall
Below Average
31
35
30
40
37
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

42.7/100

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

30.5/100

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

37.0/100

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.