Journal rankings · indicator year 2019
Choose a field to open its ranking, or a journal to find its row in its subfield’s list.
Subfield ranking · 2019
Archeology journal rankings 2019
0 ranked journals · Subfield in Social Sciences
No Archeology journals meet eligibility for 2019, so this year has no ranking. Browse Social Sciences rankings.
Ranks and citation indicators: 2019. Journal access status and listed APC: source snapshot September 23, 2026.
Subfields of Social Sciences (22)
0 ranked journals
Filters
Subfields of Social Sciences, with Archeology highlighted.
- Sociology and Political Science1,325
- Education724
- Political Science and International Relations326
- Communication74
- Gender Studies64
- Safety Research56
- Health53
- Public Administration51
- Law48
- Linguistics and Language48
- Urban Studies48
- Transportation46
- Library and Information Sciences44
- Demography38
- Anthropology37
- Geography, Planning and Development31
- Cultural Studies8
- Development3
- General Social Sciences3
- Human Factors and Ergonomics1
- Archeology0
- Life-span and Life-course Studies0
Journals
Citations made in 2019. Corpus-wide, 83.4% of core-journal articles and reviews published that year have at least one matched reference; the share varies by journal and field.
1 additional Archeology journal with metrics is unranked under this release’s eligibility rules: a journal needs at least 30 citable documents in 2016–2018, 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.
At a glance
Indicator year: 2019. Publication window: 2016–2018. How these summaries are calculated
- Ranked journals
- 0
- Window papers (baseline)
- 2,233 +17.9% from indicator year 2016
- Median OJR
- — Change unavailable from indicator year 2016
- Rising journals (2025)
- 0
Window papers are the baseline paper population: citable papers (articles, reviews and conference papers) from 2016–2018 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.
| Measure | Year series | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranked journals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Window papers (baseline) | 919 | 921 | 1,021 | 1,056 | 1,080 | 1,133 | 1,155 | 1,210 | 1,236 | 1,326 | 1,434 | 1,522 | 1,548 | 1,636 | 1,686 | 1,830 | 1,894 | 2,098 | 2,164 | 2,233 | 2,247 | 2,326 | 2,361 | 2,304 | 2,357 | 2,458 | |
| Median OJR | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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.