Indexed in Journament

molbank

ISSN 1422-8599· EN

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
30.0 / 100
Journament Score
Poor
Ranked #18,116 of 29,298 scored journals (34,012 indexed)
20 Articles
Scores higher than 38.1% of scored journals
050100
The Journament Score is computed from platform statistics — reader engagement, accessibility, publication timeliness, keyword breadth, community impact and content distribution — into a single 0–100 figure, recalculated as new articles and metadata are indexed. Dimensions that cannot be measured for this journal are excluded rather than estimated. It is independent of the paid AI Quality Analysis, which never affects this score or the ranking. Full methodology →

About This Journal

Short Name molbank
Abbreviated Name molbank
ISSN 1422-8599
URL http://www.mdpi.com/journal/molbank

Quality Profile

6 of 12 dimensions measured
Engagement 31.0
Accessibility 20.0
Timeliness 0.0
Innovation 39.0
Community Impact 8.6
Content Distribution 72.4
This journal Average of scored journals
Platform statistics — the free Journament Score AI Quality Analysis — separate paid product, ranks nothing

6 of the 12 dimensions could not be measured for this journal. They are left out entirely rather than plotted as zero, and with 6 dimensions measured there is not enough of a profile to draw as a shape.

Show the numbers
Journament quality dimensions for molbank
Dimension This journal Corpus average
Engagement 31.0 30.4
Accessibility 20.0 22.5
Timeliness 0.0 3.0
Diversity 22.7
Innovation 39.0 24.1
Community Impact 8.6 4.2
Content Distribution 72.4 88.7
Content Quality 55.5
Ethics & Transparency 40.2
Editorial Standards 33.4
Publication Regularity 53.2
Geographic Reach 30.8

Publications Per Year

Articles (20)

2012
a hybrid approach using ism for leveling agile criteria and fuzzy ahp to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and fuzzy topsis to rank the alternatives
Vol. 2 , No. 1 , pp. 107-134
390 views Abstract
2019
<i>N</i>-Benzo[<i>c</i>][1,2,5]thiazol-4-yl-3-trifluoromethylbenzamide
Vol. 2019 , No. 3 , pp. M1075-
384 views Abstract
2012
parameter estimation for improving association indicators in binary logistic regression
Vol. 2 , No. 1 , pp. 135-154
381 views Abstract
2012
prioritizing improvable human capital processes in esfahan oil refinery company based on pcf and by ipa approach
Vol. 3 , No. 1 , pp. 41-68
369 views Abstract
2008
One-pot Microwave-Assisted Synthesis of 1H-Phenanthro[9,10- d][1,2,3]triazole
Vol. 2008 , No. 3 , pp. M577-
358 views Abstract
2012
analysis of quality of ....
Vol. 2 , No. 2 , pp. 101-120
336 views Abstract
2014
weighting performance evaluation criteria base in balanced score card approach with use of combination method shapley value & bull\'s-eye
Vol. 5 , No. 1 , pp. 113-124
322 views Abstract
2015
project scheduling with fuzzy number using simulated annealing algorithm
Vol. 5 , No. 2 , pp. 74-67
287 views Abstract
2011
2,3-Diaminophenazine
Vol. 2011 , No. 3 , pp. M730-
286 views Abstract
2019
<i>N</i>-Benzo[<i>c</i>][1,2,5]thiazol-4-yl-3-trifluoromethylbenzamide
Vol. 2019 , No. 3 , pp. M1075-
384 views Abstract
2017
university course timetabling using constraint programming
Vol. 8 , No. 1 , pp. 119-138
113 views Abstract
2016
reactive scheduling presentation for an open shop problem focused on job\\\'s due dates
Vol. 6 , No. 2 , pp. 95-112
273 views Abstract
2015
developing a supply chain planning model for perishable crops
Vol. 6 , No. 1 , pp. 35-60
238 views Abstract
2015
project scheduling with fuzzy number using simulated annealing algorithm
Vol. 5 , No. 2 , pp. 74-67
287 views Abstract
2015
a single period multi objective mathematical model for portfolio
Vol. 5 , No. 2 , pp. 92-75
138 views Abstract
2015
a new method to calculate internal rate of return
Vol. 6 , No. 1 , pp. 113-126
246 views Abstract
Journament Score
30.0/100 · Poor
Ranked #18,116 of 29,298 scored
(34,012 journals indexed)
Platform Statistics
AI Quality Analysis
Separate paid analysis — does not affect ranking.

Overall Quality Score

30.0/100

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

31.0/100

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

20.0/100

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

Not yet measured

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

39.0/100

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

8.6/100

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

0.0/100

Evaluates recent publication activity, publication frequency, and currency of research topics.

Higher scores indicate consistent publishing schedules and timely coverage of current research trends.

Content Distribution

72.4/100

Measures how evenly reader attention spreads across the journal's articles, using the Gini coefficient of article clicks.

Higher scores mean readership is distributed across many articles rather than concentrated on one or two.

Ethics & Transparency Score

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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.