Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice

Our screening does not flag Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. That is not a guarantee of quality — it means the venue is not on Beall's archive (frozen since 2017) and does not match our name-pattern heuristic. It is listed in Scopus, Web of Science, which is a positive signal.

Per our venue index, Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice appears in: Scopus, Web of Science. Index membership changes over time — confirm on the index's own site before relying on it.

Papers in Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice are cited about 3.9 times each within two years of publication, and Scimago places it in Q1, with an h-index of 49. Those are the open equivalents: the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor is a proprietary metric we neither compute nor license, so we show the two-year citation rate and Scimago quartile instead — they answer the same question of how heavily the journal is cited. A citation rate is a property of a field as much as of a journal.

Scimago places Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice in Q1 for its subject category. Quartiles split the journals in a field into four equal groups by SJR, so Q1 is the most-cited quarter and Q4 the least; Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice is cited about 3.9 times per paper over two years, with an h-index of 49. A journal is ranked per subject category, so one spanning several fields can sit in different quartiles depending on the category.

The Web of Science quartile comes from Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a proprietary product we neither license nor compute — so we cannot state a JCR quartile for Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. The open equivalent is its Scimago quartile, Q1, derived from Scopus citation data. Because JCR ranks against Web of Science and Scimago against Scopus, the two can differ, so check Clarivate's site directly if you need the JCR quartile specifically.

Our index records its access status as "gold". Where this is derived from publisher-level signals rather than works-level data it is a heuristic, so confirm on the journal's own site — particularly if an article processing charge matters to you.