About RCR Impact Factor
The articles that we publish are downloadable by anybody in the world, free of charge, immediately. In this way, we are helping the advancement of the academic field and the distribution of our author's work.
Scholars reach our articles. In fact, scholars can find them by coming to our official website, but also by accessing Social Science Open Access Repository, Internet Archive, Academia.edu, and other open-access databases. Of course, search engines such as Google or Bing are an excellent way to find our articles. This high accessibility rises the impact of the articles we publish.
Review of Communication Research has been included in SCOPUS ("The title will be loaded in Scopus as soon as we have access to the title and the content has been processed for indexing") and Emerging Sources Citation Index, which means that scholars who search in Web of Science can find our articles.
Moreover, our articles are citable as soon as they are accepted. It also facilitates a fast impact on the field.
As a consequence, our articles have an high impact on the field. We have calculated some statistics that may give you an overall idea of our citation performance:
1. The articles RCR published from 2015 to 2017 have been cited an average of 2.8 times in Web of Science (RCR is included in Web of Science Core Collection);
2. The Impact Factor that we have calculated using Journal Citation Reports (JCR) statistic is 2.3 for 2017 (Please, note that RCR is not ranked in JCR and therefore Clarivate has not provided us with such information);
3. The average number of citations received by the articles we published in 2014, 2015, and 2016 by the end of 2017 in Google Scholar is 13.9 (SD = 12.5; Median = 10; min = 3, Max = 41.)
Below, we have listed the articles published in journals listed in JCR that have cited our papers.
2017 (articles marked with an asterisk are in press, and have not been asigned to an issue yet)
Boeijinga, A., Hoeken, H., & Sanders, J. (2017). Storybridging: Four steps for constructing effective health narratives. Health Education Journal, 0017896917725360.
de Graaf, A., van den Putte, B., Nguyen, M. H., Zebregs, S., Lammers, J., & Neijens, P. (2017). The effectiveness of narrative versus informational smoking education on smoking beliefs, attitudes and intentions of low-educated adolescents. Psychology & Health, 32(7), 810-825.
Donné, L., Hoeks, J., & Jansen, C. (2017). Using a narrative to spark safer sex communication. Health Education Journal, 0017896917710967.
*Geber, S., Baumann, E., & Klimmt, C. (2017). Where Do Norms Come From? Peer Communication as a Factor in Normative Social Influences on Risk Behavior. Communication Research, 0093650217718656.
Knobloch‐Westerwick, S., & Lavis, S. M. (2017). Selecting Serious or Satirical, Supporting or Stirring News? Selective Exposure to Partisan versus Mockery News Online Videos. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 54-81.
*Koops van’t Jagt, R., Hoeks, J. C., Duizer, E., Baron, M., Molina, G. B., Unger, J. B., & Jansen, C. J. (2017). Sweet Temptations: How Does Reading a Fotonovela About Diabetes Affect Dutch Adults with Different Levels of Literacy?. Health communication, 1-7.
*Lewis, N., & Sznitman, S. R. (2017). You Brought it on Yourself: The Joint Effects of Message Type, Stigma, and Responsibility Attribution on Attitudes Toward Medical Cannabis. Journal of Communication.
*Ma, Z., & Nan, X. (2017). Friends Don’t Let Friends Smoke: How Storytelling and Social Distance Influence Nonsmokers’ Responses to Antismoking Messages. Health Communication, 1-9.
Moon, T. J., Chih, M. Y., Shah, D. V., Yoo, W., & Gustafson, D. H. (2017). Breast Cancer Survivors’ Contribution to Psychosocial Adjustment of Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients in a Computer-Mediated Social Support Group. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1077699016687724.
Nix, E., & Wengreen, H. J. (2017). Social approval bias in self-reported fruit and vegetable intake after presentation of a normative message in college students. Appetite.
Pan, W., Shen, C., & Feng, B. (2017). You Get What You Give: Understanding Reply Reciprocity and Social Capital in Online Health Support Forums. Journal of health communication, 22(1), 45-52.
Serrano-Tellería, A. (2017). Innovations in mobile interface design: Affordances and risks. El Profesional de la Información, 26(2).
Sheer, V. C., & Rice, R. E. (2017). Mobile instant messaging use and social capital: Direct and indirect associations with employee outcomes. Information & Management, 54(1), 90-102.
*Sparling, A., Stutts, L. A., Sanner, H., & Eijkholt, M. M. (2017). In-person and online social participation and emotional health in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 1-9.
van Krieken, K., Hoeken, H., & Sanders, J. (2017). Evoking and Measuring Identification with Narrative Characters–A Linguistic Cues Framework. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1190.
Wengreen, H. J., Nix, E., & Madden, G. J. (2017). The effect of social norms messaging regarding skin carotenoid concentrations among college students. Appetite, 116, 39-44.
*Yang, B. (2017). The Moderating Role of Close versus Distal Peer Injunctive Norms and Interdependent Self-Construal in the Effects of Descriptive Norms on College Drinking. Health Communication, 1-9.
Yang, F., Zhong, B., Kumar, A., Chow, S. M., & Ouyang, A. (2017). Exchanging Social Support Online: A Longitudinal Social Network Analysis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients’ Interactions on a Health Forum. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1077699017729815.
*Walkner, T. J., Weare, A. M., & Tully, M. (2017). “You get old. You get invisible”: Social isolation and the challenge of communicating with aging women. Journal of Women & Aging, 1-18.
Bayer, J.B.; Campbell, S.W.; Ling, R. (2016), Connection Cues: Activating the Norms and Habits of Social Connectedness, Communication Theory, 26 (2), 128-149
Donohue, W.A.; Sherry, J.L.; Idzik, P. (2016), Interaction Dynamics Predict Successful Negotiation in Divorce Mediation, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35 (4), 374-393
Zhao, X., Rolfe-Redding, J., & Kotcher, J. E. (2016). Partisan differences in the relationship between newspaper coverage and concern over global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 25(5), 543-559.
Macmillan, A., Roberts, A., Woodcock, J., Aldred, R., & Goodman, A. (2016). Trends in local newspaper reporting of London cyclist fatalities 1992-2012: the role of the media in shaping the systems dynamics of cycling. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 86, 137-145.
Lee, N. Y. (2016). Two Different Motivations on Agenda Setting: Need for Orientation and Motivated Reasoning. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28(4), 484-510.
Gebauer, F., Raab, M. H., & Carbon, C. C. (2016). Imagine All the Forces. Journal of Media Psychology. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000180
Dillard, J. P., Li, R., Meczkowski, E., Yang, C., & Shen, L. (2016). Fear Responses to Threat Appeals Functional Form, Methodological Considerations, and Correspondence Between Static and Dynamic Data. Communication Research, doi 10.1177/0093650216631097
Meczkowski, E. J., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2016). Threat appeals and persuasion: Seeking and finding the elusive curvilinear effect. Communication Monographs, 83(3), 373-395.
Shen, L. (2016). Putting the fear back again (and within individuals): revisiting the role of fear in persuasion. Health communication, 1-11.
Dillard, J. P., Li, R., & Huang, Y. (2016). Threat Appeals: The Fear–Persuasion Relationship is Linear and Curvilinear. Health Communication, 1-10.
Floyd, K., & Hesse, C. (2016). Affection deprivation is conceptually and empirically distinct from loneliness. Western Journal of Communication, 1-20.
Richards, A. S., & Hample, D. (2016). Facial Similarity Mitigates the Persuasive Effects of Source Bias: An Evolutionary Explanation for Kinship and Susceptibility to Influence. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 1-24.
Davis, R. E., Dal Cin, S., Cole, S. M., Reyes, L. I., McKenney-Shubert, S. J., Fleischer, N. L., ... & Peterson, K. E. (2016). A Tale of Two Stories: An Exploration of Identification, Message Recall, and Narrative Preferences Among Low-Income, Mexican American Women. Health Communication, 1-13.