Technology audit and production reserves

Our screening does not flag Technology audit and production reserves. 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, which is a positive signal.

Per our venue index, Technology audit and production reserves appears in: Scopus. Index membership changes over time — confirm on the index's own site before relying on it.

Papers in Technology audit and production reserves are cited about 0.7 times each within two years of publication, and Scimago places it in Q4, with an h-index of 20. 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.

In the Scimago Journal Rank 2025 edition, Technology audit and production reserves is Q4 in all 3 of its subject categories. By category: Management of Technology and Innovation: Q4, #278 of 295; Chemical Engineering (miscellaneous): Q4, #334 of 369; Information Systems: Q4, #394 of 434. Quartiles split the journals in a subject category into four equal groups by SJR, so Q1 is the most-cited quarter and Q4 the least; Technology audit and production reserves is cited about 0.7 times per paper over two years, with an h-index of 20.

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 Technology audit and production reserves. The open equivalent is its Scimago quartile, Q4, 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.