Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology
- ISSN-L
- 1747-4108
- ISSN
- 1747-4116
- OpenAlex ID
- S140651779
- APC list price
- Not listed
2025: no OJR in this release. Latest calculable OJR: 0.30 in 2016. Last eligible ranking: Q3 in Reproductive Medicine, 2016.
Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology has no quartile in OpenJournalRank’s 2025 ranking. OJR quartiles are calculated independently of SCImago, Scopus and JCR quartiles.
No 2025 values in this release: the cards below show 2016, the latest year with figures.
The OpenJournalRank Indicator (OJR) is a free, publicly available metric of a journal’s field-normalized citation impact, computed from open OpenAlex citation data. It compares citations to a journal’s papers from the previous three years with the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type, so 1.00 is the world average and values can be compared across fields. It is computed with the NCI3 method. For 2016 it counts non-self citations to the articles, reviews and conference papers a journal published in 2013–2015. Ranks and quartiles order journals by OJR within the subfield, the field and all journals.
0.30
Q3#35 of 46
The Impact factor (2-year) counts citations made in 2016 to the articles, reviews and conference papers a journal published in the two previous years (2014–2015), divided by the number of those papers. Self-citations count; citations from repository-hosted works do not. It is not normalized by field. Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor™ uses the same basic formula but gives different numbers, and this site does not show it. Clarivate also counts citations to editorials, news and letters while dividing only by articles and reviews. OpenAlex sets document types automatically. The citing data differ: OpenAlex links references for most but not all works, and we leave out repository-hosted citing works. Publication years and snapshot dates also differ. Because of these differences, our value can be higher or lower than the JIF for a given journal, so don’t compare the two directly.
—
No 2016 value
Change not available
Why is it different?
- Journals usually quote Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor™ (JIF).
- Same idea: citations this year to papers from the past two years, divided by those papers.
- The JIF also counts citations to editorials, news and letters but divides only by research papers. We count citations to research papers only.
- Different citation data (OpenAlex, not Web of Science) and timing.
So the two numbers can differ, in either direction, and the size of the difference has not been established. Compare ours with other journals here, not with the JIF.
Full explanation →OJR compares non-self citations to classified citable papers with the world-average expectation for their subfields, publication years and types.
Computed by OpenJournalRank from the OpenAlex snapshot of September 23, 2026; 472,521,793 citations counted across this release.
Looking for Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor™? Check the Master Journal List
OJR rank in each category · 2016
The badge is the quartile; Q1 is the top quarter of ranked journals. Each track runs from the bottom of the category (left) to the top (right), shaded by quartile. The bold marker is this journal and the thin tick the category median. The outlined box is the likely rank range: the 95% interval from re-drawing the journal’s papers 1,000 times. “Spans Q1–Q2” means that range crosses a quartile boundary.
Not ranked in 2025. These are its 2016 ranks, the last year it was eligible.
Ranking categories are derived from OpenAlex paper classifications and may differ from a journal’s stated scope.
At a glance
Quartile history in every category and the key figures for 2016, drawn as small charts.
Quartile by year
Each cell is the journal’s quartile among ranked journals in that category and year, by OJR. Q1 is the top quarter. Years run 2000–2025; tap or hover a cell for the exact rank.
2025Subfield · Reproductive MedicineNot ranked
Each track runs from the bottom of the category (left) to the top (right), shaded by quartile. The bold marker is this journal, the outlined box its likely rank range and the thin tick the category median.
#35 of 46in Reproductive Medicine
Citations made in 2016 to papers from 2014–2015, divided by the number of those papers, next to the same value a year earlier.
—
Everything the journal published in 2016, split into articles, reviews and other items such as editorials. The line shows the last ten years.
0
Citations made in 2016 to papers from 2013–2015, divided by the number of those papers. Includes self-citations. The line shows the last ten years.
0.6
The median number of 2016 citations per paper from 2013–2015, next to the mean (cites per document). A mean far above the median means a few papers draw most of the citations.
0.0
Share of the journal’s 2013–2015 papers that are among the most cited 10% for their subfield, year and type. The marker at 10% is the world baseline.
1.3%
Share of 2016 citations to the journal’s 2013–2015 papers that come from the journal itself. The tick on the ring marks the field median.
0.0%
Share of documents published in 2016 that are free to read, across all document types.
—
Share of documents published in 2016 with authors in two or more countries.
—
All-time OpenAlex values at the snapshot date, not limited to the ranking window. The h-index is the largest h such that h papers have at least h citations each; the i10-index counts papers with at least 10 citations.
26h-index
Over the years
Impact factor (2-year)
Show the data as a table
| Year | Impact factor (2-year) |
|---|---|
| 2025 | — |
| 2024 | — |
| 2023 | — |
| 2022 | — |
| 2021 | — |
| 2020 | — |
| 2019 | — |
| 2018 | — |
| 2017 | — |
| 2016 | — |
| 2015 | 0.45 |
| 2014 | 0.48 |
| 2013 | 0.43 |
| 2012 | 0.70 |
| 2011 | 0.42 |
| 2010 | 0.51 |
| 2009 | 0.35 |
| 2008 | 0.30 |
| 2007 | 0.06 |
| 2006 | — |
OJR
Show the data as a table
| Year | OJR | Field median |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | — | 0.67 |
| 2024 | — | 0.66 |
| 2023 | — | 0.66 |
| 2022 | — | 0.66 |
| 2021 | — | 0.66 |
| 2020 | — | 0.72 |
| 2019 | — | 0.70 |
| 2018 | — | 0.70 |
| 2017 | — | 0.72 |
| 2016 | 0.30 | 0.73 |
| 2015 | 0.24 | 0.74 |
| 2014 | 0.27 | 0.75 |
| 2013 | 0.29 | 0.73 |
| 2012 | 0.34 | 0.76 |
| 2011 | 0.25 | 0.75 |
| 2010 | 0.22 | 0.76 |
| 2009 | 0.18 | 0.74 |
| 2008 | 0.18 | 0.72 |
| 2007 | 0.05 | 0.70 |
| 2006 | — | 0.68 |
Documents by type
Show the data as a table
| Year | Articles | Reviews | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | — | — | — |
| 2024 | — | — | — |
| 2023 | — | — | — |
| 2022 | — | — | — |
| 2021 | — | — | — |
| 2020 | — | — | — |
| 2019 | — | — | — |
| 2018 | — | — | — |
| 2017 | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 59 | 1 | 2 |
| 2012 | 72 | 0 | 6 |
| 2011 | 76 | 0 | 6 |
| 2010 | 71 | 1 | 6 |
| 2009 | 82 | 1 | 4 |
| 2008 | 79 | 0 | 11 |
| 2007 | 103 | 1 | 6 |
| 2006 | 38 | 0 | 4 |
Citations to the previous three years
Show the data as a table
| Year | From other sources | Self-citations |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | — | — |
| 2024 | — | — |
| 2023 | — | — |
| 2022 | — | — |
| 2021 | — | — |
| 2020 | — | — |
| 2019 | — | — |
| 2018 | — | — |
| 2017 | — | — |
| 2016 | 32 | 0 |
| 2015 | 55 | 0 |
| 2014 | 89 | 0 |
| 2013 | 99 | 1 |
| 2012 | 122 | 2 |
| 2011 | 89 | 0 |
| 2010 | 91 | 2 |
| 2009 | 60 | 3 |
| 2008 | 34 | 3 |
| 2007 | 2 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 | 0 |
Share in the top 10% of their field
Show the data as a table
| Year | Top 10% share |
|---|---|
| 2025 | — |
| 2024 | — |
| 2023 | — |
| 2022 | — |
| 2021 | — |
| 2020 | — |
| 2019 | — |
| 2018 | — |
| 2017 | — |
| 2016 | 1.3% |
| 2015 | 0.8% |
| 2014 | 1.9% |
| 2013 | 2.6% |
| 2012 | 2.5% |
| 2011 | 1.2% |
| 2010 | 1.4% |
| 2009 | 0.2% |
| 2008 | 0.8% |
| 2007 | 0.0% |
| 2006 | — |
Collaboration and open access
Show the data as a table
| Year | International collaboration | Open access |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | — | — |
| 2024 | — | — |
| 2023 | — | — |
| 2022 | — | — |
| 2021 | — | — |
| 2020 | — | — |
| 2019 | — | — |
| 2018 | — | — |
| 2017 | — | — |
| 2016 | — | — |
| 2015 | — | — |
| 2014 | — | — |
| 2013 | 11.3% | 19.4% |
| 2012 | 10.3% | 17.9% |
| 2011 | 7.3% | 25.6% |
| 2010 | 5.1% | 32.1% |
| 2009 | 11.5% | 23.0% |
| 2008 | 14.4% | 17.8% |
| 2007 | 10.9% | 19.1% |
| 2006 | 7.1% | 16.7% |
Similar journals
Journals ranked nearest to this one in Reproductive Medicine by OJR in 2016, the last year this journal was ranked.
- #30Current Obstetrics and Gynecology ReportsQ3OJR 0.37
- #31Reproductive Medicine and BiologyQ3OJR 0.36
- #32Advances in Reproductive SciencesQ3OJR 0.33
- #33Andrology-Open AccessQ3OJR 0.32
- #34International Journal of Feminist Approaches to BioethicsQ3OJR 0.32
- #35Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology (This journal)Q3OJR 0.30
- #36Reproductive System & Sexual DisordersQ4OJR 0.29
- #37Middle East Fertility Society JournalQ4OJR 0.28
- #38Gynécologie Obstétrique & FertilitéQ4OJR 0.26
- #39Gynecology & ObstetricsQ4OJR 0.19
- #40Journal of Fertilization In Vitro - IVF-Worldwide Reproductive Medicine Genetics & Stem Cell BiologyQ4OJR 0.18
Detailed breakdown
The figures behind the charts, written out in full.
The two headline numbers
OJR is OpenJournalRank’s index, computed with the NCI3 method. It divides the non-self citations that papers published in 2013–2015 received in 2016 by the citations expected for papers of the same subfield, publication year and type worldwide. For 2013–2015, papers in this journal received 30% of the citations expected worldwide for comparable papers.
The Impact factor (2-year) is simpler: citations made in 2016 to the papers published in 2014 and 2015, divided by the number of those papers. This journal has no Impact factor (2-year) for 2016. It counts self-citations and is not adjusted for field, so a value of 5 means something different in economics and in molecular biology.
This value is computed from OpenAlex and is not Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor™. The two use different citation sources and different rules for which items count, so the numbers will not match. Across all core journals, 77.2% of articles and reviews published in 2016 have at least one matched reference in OpenAlex (78.1% in 2015). This is a corpus-wide share: it does not measure how complete any one journal’s reference lists are, and no value on this page is adjusted for it.
How this score was computed
Citations made in 2016 to articles, reviews and conference papers published in 2013–2015. Actual and Expected include only papers with a subfield.
- Actual (non-self citations)
- 32
- Expected (world-average expectation)
- 107.359601
- OJR standard error
- 0.0641
- Most-cited paper's share of citations
- 15.6%
- Citable papers in 2013–2015
- 55
- Classification coverage
- 100.0%
- Share of citable papers with a subfield
- Citations without a known source
- 6.3%
- Share of Actual from citing works without a known source
- Reference coverage in 2016
- 77.2%
- Corpus-wide share of core-journal articles and reviews with at least one matched reference
OJR = Actual ÷ Expected
32 ÷ 107.359601 ≈ 0.30
Displayed values are rounded; OJR uses the unrounded expectation.