Todd:Journal Impact Factors: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Matthew Todd (talk | contribs) (added chem rev) |
Matthew Todd (talk | contribs) (added a few) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (2010): 12.73<br> | Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (2010): 12.73<br> | ||
Beilstein J. Org. Chem. (2011): 2.52<br> | |||
Chem. Eur. J. (2010): 5.48<br> | Chem. Eur. J. (2010): 5.48<br> | ||
Chem. Rev. (2010): 33.04<br> | Chem. Rev. (2010): 33.04<br> | ||
Chem. Soc. Rev (2011): 28.8<br> | |||
Eur. J. Org. Chem. (2010): 3.21<br> | Eur. J. Org. Chem. (2010): 3.21<br> | ||
Inorg. Chem. (2010): 4.33<br> | Inorg. Chem. (2010): 4.33<br> | ||
Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
PLoS ONE (2010): 4.41<br> | PLoS ONE (2010): 4.41<br> | ||
PLoS NTD (2010?): 4.69<br> | PLoS NTD (2010?): 4.69<br> | ||
Pure Appl. Chem. (2011): 2.79<br> | |||
I know there are no links to prove the numbers above. | I know there are no links to prove the numbers above. |
Latest revision as of 22:18, 22 July 2012
When writing grants in Australia it is obligatory to talk about journal impact factors. A relevant list: Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (2010): 12.73 I know there are no links to prove the numbers above. |