Although not a great fan of Impact Factor (IF), it was good to see that the IF for Minerals Engineering has leapt from 2.707 in 2017 to last year's figure of 3.315, way ahead of any of the other journals in this field.
Minerals Engineering (3.315)
Minerals (2.25)
Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy Review (1.615)
International Journal of Minerals Metallurgy & Materials (1.221)
Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing (1.062)
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly (0.789)
Minerals and Metallurgical Processing (0.784)
Minerals (2.25)
Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy Review (1.615)
International Journal of Minerals Metallurgy & Materials (1.221)
Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing (1.062)
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly (0.789)
Minerals and Metallurgical Processing (0.784)
Since its merger with International Journal of Mineral Processing in 2018 with a completely new Editorial structure (posting of 22 January 2018) the journal has gone from strength to strength. In 2018 a record 1421 papers were submitted to the journal, of which 965 were rejected, a rejection rate of 71%. 43% of the papers submitted were from China, reflecting the significance of this vast country in current and future mineral processing research. Australia, the 2nd most prolific country accounted for only 6.5% of papers submitted. However, only 16% of the Chinese papers were accepted for publication, compared with 66% from Australia, highlighting that China still has some way to go in preparation of papers for publication.
Downloads from ScienceDirect truly reflect a journal's usage, and last year there was a record of over 655,000 downloads of articles, a truly awesome figure. China and Australia were the most prolific downloaders, accounting for 27% and 7% respectively.
 |
| ScienceDirect Usage Top 5 Countries in 2018 |
As Editor-in-Chief I am naturally very proud of the journal's world #1 status, and I would like to thank not only the Editorial team, but also the many hundreds of researchers worldwide who give up some of their valuable time to contribute to the peer-review process via diligent review of the submitted papers.
Here's to further gains in 2019!
.jpg)
Well done Barry! Proud to be part of this team and thanks to all the reviewers!!!!
ReplyDeleteAnita Parbhakar-Fox, University of Queensland, Australia
Thanks Anita, but this is very much a team effort. Thanks to people like you and the other editors, and the hundreds of reviewers who give their time to the peer-review process
DeleteCongrats to you Barry, editorial team of Min. Eng., all active reviewers and the whole minerals engineering community.
ReplyDeleteThere are two well-journals which are initially preferred for publishing mineral processing-related research : Minerals Engineering and Powder Technology. I observe that the former has better review and decision stages. So, mineral engineers may prefer sending their manuscripts to Minerals Engineering. As a result, this may contribute to the claimed increase in IF.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, Barry; a proud moment to all of us and a reflection of focused efforts and clear understanding of "quality in content".
ReplyDeleteI am sure the Flag will be flying high for times to come. Congratulations to all those involved.
Congratulations Dr.wills.Mineral engineering is now impacting even such unconventional sectors as sand washing, with which I am deeply involved. Hope some day erudite articles will be written on this new area of application. Regards
ReplyDelete