Indexed in Journament

journal of consulting and clinical psychology

ISSN 1939-2117· EN

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
36.8 / 100
Journament Score
Poor
Ranked #11,257 of 29,341 scored journals (33,995 indexed)
69 Articles
Scores higher than 61.6% 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

ชื่อย่อ j consult clin psychol
ชื่อตัวย่อ j consult clin psychol
ISSN 1939-2117
URL http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/ccp/index.aspx

Quality Profile

7 of 12 dimensions measured
This journal Average of scored journals
Platform statistics — the free Journament Score AI Quality Analysis — separate paid product, ranks nothing

5 of the 12 dimensions could not be measured for this journal. They are left as gaps in the shape rather than plotted as zero.

Show the numbers
Journament quality dimensions for journal of consulting and clinical psychology
Dimension This journal Corpus average
Engagement 30.6 30.1
Accessibility 20.0 17.9
Timeliness 0.0 19.2
Diversity 55.6 28.8
Innovation 70.0 31.2
Community Impact 7.9 13.4
Content Distribution 63.6 88.4
Content Quality 55.5
Ethics & Transparency 40.2
Editorial Standards 33.4
Publication Regularity 53.2
Geographic Reach 30.8

Publications Per Year

Articles (69)

2011
a radiographic assessment of the prevalence of pulp stones in patients referred to rafsanjan faculty of dentistry in 2008
Vol. 5 , No. 2 , pp. 28-33
707 views Abstract
2016
2009
spontaneous resolution of vesicoureteral reflux (vur) in iranian children, a single center experience in 533 cases
Vol. 3 , No. 1 , pp. 49-58
659 views Abstract
2008
consequences of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in qom golpaegani hospital during 2005–7
Vol. 2 , No. 1 , pp. 13-20
534 views Abstract
2017
determination of lifestyle and its affecting factors in the elderly over 85 years in supporting centers and organizations of qom province in 2015-2016 (iran)
Vol. 11 , No. 7 , pp. 75-83
486 views Abstract
2019
Men's misuse of prescription opioids from early to middle adulthood: An examination of developmental and concurrent prediction models.
Vol. 87 , No. 10 , pp. 893-903
444 views DOI Abstract
2011
epidemiologic features of admitted patients with infectious diseases in qom
Vol. 4 , No. 4 , pp. 54-58
439 views Abstract
2017
2020
Brief online interventions for LGBTQ young adult mental and behavioral health: A randomized controlled trial in a high-stigma, low-resource context.
Vol. 88 , No. 5 , pp. 429-444
315 views DOI Abstract
2019
Men's misuse of prescription opioids from early to middle adulthood: An examination of developmental and concurrent prediction models.
Vol. 87 , No. 10 , pp. 893-903
444 views DOI Abstract
2019
Therapist and clinic effects in psychotherapy: A three-level model of outcome variability.
Vol. 87 , No. 4 , pp. 345-356
291 views DOI Abstract
2018
the opinions of the consultant professors of qom university of medical sciences about academic counseling and guidance, duties of the consultant professor and its related areas, (iran)
Vol. 11 , No. 12 , pp. 118-127
332 views Abstract
2018
abscess of the spleen during pregnancy: case report
Vol. 12 , No. 4 , pp. 100-104
170 views Abstract
2017
assessment of dietary intake, nutrients, and anthropometric indices in postmenopausal women with hypertension
Vol. 11 , No. 3 , pp. 22-31
241 views Abstract
Journament Score
36.8/100 · Poor
Ranked #11,257 of 29,341 scored
(33,995 journals indexed)
Platform Statistics
AI Quality Analysis
Separate paid analysis — does not affect ranking.

Overall Quality Score

36.8/100

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

30.6/100

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

55.6/100

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

70.0/100

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

7.9/100

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

63.6/100

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.