Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer | Journament

Journal Ranking

#1752 / 33,939
📉 Poor
Overall Score
38.5/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
35
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
38
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 1 week ago

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

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 Support Care Cancer
Abbreviated Name support care cancer
ISSN 1433-7339
Aim and Scope
URL https://www.springer.com/journal/520
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (77 total)

2012
lung fibrosis in deceased hiv-infected patients with pneumocystis pneumonia
;Erica J Shaddock;Guy A Richards;Jill Murray
Vol. 13 , No. 2 , pp. 64-67
598 views DOI Abstract
2003
Piperacillin-tazobactam is more effective than ceftriaxone plus gentamicin in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a randomized comparison
Gorschlüter M;Hahn C;Fixson A;Mey U;Ziske C;Molitor E;Horré R;Sauerbruch T;Marklein G;Schmidt-Wolf IG;Glasmacher A;;
Vol. 11 , No. 6 , pp. -
558 views Abstract
2017
the psychosocial impact of caregiving on the family caregivers of chronically ill aids and/or hiv patients in home-based care: a qualitative study in zimbabwe
;Claire van Deventer;Anne Wright
Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. e1-e7
526 views DOI Abstract
2011
Predicting febrile neutropenic patients at low risk using the MASCC score: does bacteremia matter?
Paesmans M;Klastersky J;Maertens J;Georgala A;Muanza F;Aoun M;Ferrant A;Rapoport B;Rolston K;Ameye L;;
Vol. 19 , No. 7 , pp. -
509 views Abstract
2019
A qualitative analysis of the benefits and barriers of support groups for patients with brain tumours and their caregivers.
Mallya, Sasha;Daniels, Maureen;Kanter, Cheryl;Stone, Alyson;Cipolla, Amanda;Edelstein, Kim;D'Agostino, Norma;
454 views DOI Abstract
2010
Prediction of outcome of patients with metastatic breast cancer: evaluation with prognostic factors and Nottingham prognostic index
Liu MT;Huang WT;Wang AY;Huang CC;Huang CY;Chang TH;Pi CP;Yang HH;;
Vol. 18 , No. 12 , pp. -
445 views Abstract
2019
Chemotherapy intravenously in children with cancer at home, the nurse practitioner makes it possible!
Kok, N T M;Ligthart-Beukhof, A C;van de Wetering, M D;
421 views DOI Abstract
1998
Monotherapy with piperacillin/tazobactam versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as an empiric therapy for fever in neutropenic cancer patients
Hess U;Böhme C;Rey K;Senn HJ;;
Vol. 6 , No. 4 , pp. -
420 views Abstract
2019
Patient-reported outcomes from a workplace intervention program for cancer survivors highlight ongoing needs to support continuation of work.
Aubel, Dawn;
414 views DOI Abstract
2019
Question prompts to empower cancer patients: results of a randomized controlled trial.
Zetzl, T;Mann, D;Gruner, S;Schuler, M;Jentschke, E;Neuderth, S;Roch, C;van Oorschot, B;
364 views DOI Abstract
View All 77 Articles
39
Overall
Poor
31
35
30
40
38
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

38.5/100

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

31.1/100

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

37.5/100

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.