OpenJournalRank

Journal rankings · indicator year 2003

Choose a field to open its ranking, or a journal to find its row in its subfield’s list.

Subfield ranking · 2003

Complementary and alternative medicine journal rankings 2003

17 ranked journals · Subfield in Medicine

Complementary and alternative medicine has 17 ranked journals in 2003. The median journal has an OJR of 0.30, below the world average of 1.00, unchanged on 2002; Q1 starts at OJR 0.69. The top three are British Homeopathic journal, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, and Complementary Therapies in Medicine.

Ranks and citation indicators: 2003. Journal access status and listed APC: source snapshot September 23, 2026.

Ranked journals

Journals whose main subfield sits in this category and that published at least 30 citable documents (articles, reviews and conference papers) in 2000–2002, the window the 2003 score is computed on.

17
<1% of Medicine
Median OJR

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.

The middle OJR among ranked journals in this category: half score higher, half lower. 1.00 is the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type.

The dot is this category, the solid tick is the median of all ranked journals and the dashed line is the world average.

0.30
This subfieldAll 0.75World 1.00
Open-access journals

Share of ranked journals in this category that are fully open access, so every paper is free to read. Hybrid journals, which sell subscriptions and open single papers for a fee, are not counted.

18%
All fields: 13%
Median listed APC

Median list price of the article processing charge, in US dollars, among ranked journals in this category that list a price above zero. Journals with a listed APC of $0 and journals with no known price are left out of this median. The At a glance table below gives a second median that includes the $0 prices.

$4,150
Median positive listed APC: $4,150 among 3 journals. 14 have no known price. All fields: $3,550.

Subfields of Medicine (42)

Show all 42 subfields

17 ranked journals

Filters

Quartile

Quartiles split the ranked journals of the list you are viewing into four equal groups by OJR. Q1 is the top quarter and Q4 the bottom quarter.

They are computed within the list on screen, so a journal can be Q1 in its subfield and Q2 in the global ranking.

Access
APC (list price)
Complementary and alternative medicine ranking, 2003

Rank is the position by OJR within the list on screen; 1 is the highest.

OJR is field-normalized 3-year citation impact: 1.00 is the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type, so values compare across fields.

The badge is the journal’s quartile in this list.

OJR

Citations per paper over a two-year window, counted from OpenAlex. It is not field-normalized, so compare it only between journals of the same field.

▲ or ▼ is the change from 2002. This is OpenJournalRank’s own count, not Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor.

Citable documents (articles, reviews and conference papers) published in 2000–2002, the window the 2003 OJR is computed on. A journal needs at least 30 to be ranked.

Share of the journal’s 2000–2002 papers that are free to read in any open-access form. The green OA tag next to a title marks a fully open-access journal.

List price of the article processing charge in US dollars. “$0 listed” means the listed price is zero; a dash means no price is listed.

The line is the journal’s OJR from 2000 to 2003.

Compare
1British Homeopathic journalElsevier BV · United Kingdom
2.24Q11.24 0.53 down from 200230——
2The Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineMary Ann Liebert, Inc. · United States
1.54Q11.49 0.11 up from 20022492%—
3Complementary Therapies in MedicineOAElsevier BV · United Kingdom
1.51Q11.48 0.17 down from 2002971%$2,760
4Acupuncture in MedicineSAGE Publishing · United Kingdom
0.78Q11.07 0.76 up from 2002860%$4,150
5Holistic Nursing PracticeLippincott Williams & Wilkins · United States
0.69Q10.64 0.28 up from 20021080%—
6HomeopathyThieme Medical Publishers (Germany) · Germany
0.42Q20.61 0.61 up from 2002550%—
0.41Q20.62 0.21 up from 2002811%—
8Complementary Medicine ResearchKarger Publishers · Switzerland
0.37Q20.32 0.28 down from 20028550%—
9Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental MedicineElsevier BV · United Kingdom
0.30Q20.54 0.02 up from 2002480%—
10Journal of Herbal PharmacotherapyTaylor & Francis · United States
0.24Q30.28 0.12 down from 2002685%—
0.18Q30.25 0.09 up from 20021400%$4,150
12Complementary health practice reviewSAGE Publishing · United States
0.15Q30.15 0.08 up from 20023126%—
0.05Q30.03 0.09 down from 20022931%—
14Journal of Natural RemediesOAInformatics Publishing Limited · India
0.04Q40.06 0.03 down from 2002650%—
15Alternative and Complementary TherapiesMary Ann Liebert, Inc. · United States
0.04Q40.12 0.01 down from 20021550%—
16Journal of pharmacopunctureOAKorean Pharmacopuncture Institute · South Korea
0.01Q40.09 0.03 up from 200252100%—
17Zhongguo xunzheng yixue zazhiSichuan University School of Medicine · China
0.00Q40.00 0.05 down from 2002390%—

Citations made in 2003. Corpus-wide, 70.2% of core-journal articles and reviews published that year have at least one matched reference; the share varies by journal and field.

19 additional Complementary and alternative medicine journals with metrics are unranked under this release’s eligibility rules: a journal needs at least 30 citable documents in 2000–2002, at least 80% of them with a subfield, and a positive world-average expectation. Ranks are within the whole category; filters hide rows without re-ranking. OJR excludes self-citations.

Rising journals

At a glance

Indicator year: 2003. Publication window: 2000–2002. How these summaries are calculated

Ranked journals
17
Window papers (baseline)
21,623 +114.5% from indicator year 2000
Median OJR
0.302 +223.9% from indicator year 2000
Rising journals (2025)
3

Window papers are the baseline paper population: citable papers (articles, reviews and conference papers) from 2000–2002 in all journals of the world-average baseline, including non-core journals, counted by each paper’s own subfield. They are not the papers of the ranked journals alone.

Category by indicator year
MeasureYear series20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Ranked journals1314161721252726283134363739414243475454515051545958
Window papers (baseline)10,08112,57216,87821,62326,75331,70637,68443,89050,77157,28763,71270,34076,88082,13884,95484,74379,39267,38151,61840,22235,63838,28644,11253,44658,25563,352
Median OJR0.090.16230.3030.3020.170.2560.2420.210.16170.270.31590.310.3900.400.530.590.430.420.2630.250.2380.3910.4080.4070.31650.37

How to read these rankings

OJR, the OpenJournalRank Indicator
A field-normalized 3-year citation impact, computed from OpenAlex with the NCI3 method. It divides the citations a journal’s papers received by the world average for papers of the same subfield, year and type, so 1.00 is the world average and 2.00 means twice as many citations as expected. Because it is normalized, it can be compared across fields. Read the methodology
Quartiles
Q1 to Q4 split the ranked journals of the list you are viewing into four equal groups by OJR. A journal’s quartile depends on the list: the same journal can be Q1 in its subfield and Q2 among all journals.
Impact factor (2-year)
Citations per paper over a two-year window, counted from OpenAlex. It is easy to compare with familiar impact factors but is not field-normalized, so compare it only within a field. It is not Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor. Why it differs from the Journal Impact Factor
Rank ranges
Each rank in the latest year carries a likely range from 1,000 resamples of the journal’s papers. Where two journals’ ranges overlap, the data cannot tell them apart, so treat neighbouring ranks as ties.