American Journal of Physical Anthropology Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology; American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Meeting, Wiley

Journal description

The American Journal of Physical Anthropology is designed for the prompt publication of original and significant articles of human evolution and variation including primate morphology physiology genetics adaptation growth development and behavior present and past. It also publishes book reviews technical reports brief communications and the abstracts and proceedings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Current impact factor: 2.38

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 2.379
2013 Impact Factor 2.514
2012 Impact Factor 2.481
2011 Impact Factor 2.824
2010 Impact Factor 2.693
2009 Impact Factor 2.756
2008 Impact Factor 2.353
2007 Impact Factor 2.273
2006 Impact Factor 2.136
2005 Impact Factor 2.104
2004 Impact Factor 2.693
2003 Impact Factor 2.052
2002 Impact Factor 2.117
2001 Impact Factor 2.043
2000 Impact Factor 1.827
1999 Impact Factor 1.724
1998 Impact Factor 1.749
1997 Impact Factor 1.364
1996 Impact Factor 1.82
1995 Impact Factor 1.777
1994 Impact Factor 1.657
1993 Impact Factor 1.81
1992 Impact Factor 1.456

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 2.67
Cited half-life >10.0
Immediacy index 0.58
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 0.85
Website American Journal of Physical Anthropology website
Other titles Proceedings of the ... annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists., American journal of physical anthropology, Physical anthropology
ISSN 0002-9483
OCLC 1480176
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details


  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Some journals have separate policies, please check with each journal directly
    • On author's personal website, institutional repositories, arXiv, AgEcon, PhilPapers, PubMed Central, RePEc or Social Science Research Network
    • Author's pre-print may not be updated with Publisher's Version/PDF
    • Author's pre-print must acknowledge acceptance for publication
    • Non-Commercial
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Publisher source must be acknowledged with citation
    • Must link to publisher version with set statement (see policy)
    • If OnlineOpen is available, BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC authors, may self-archive after 12 months
    • If OnlineOpen is available, AHRC and ESRC authors, may self-archive after 24 months
    • Publisher last contacted on 07/08/2014
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Wiley'
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • American Journal of Physical Anthropology 09/2015; DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22876
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dental microwear has been used for decades to reconstruct the diets of fossil hominins and bioarchaeological populations. The basic theory has been that hard-brittle foods (e.g., nuts, bone) require crushing and leave pits as they are pressed between opposing cheek-tooth surfaces, whereas soft-tough foods (e.g., grass blades, meat) require shearing and leave scratches as they are dragged along opposing surfaces that slide past one another. However, recent studies have called into question the efficacy of microwear as an indicator of diet. One issue has been the limited number of in vitro studies providing empirical evidence for associations between microwear pattern and chewing behavior. We here describe a new study using a chewing simulator, the BITE Master II, to examine the effects of angle of approach between opposing teeth and food consistency on microwear surface texture. Results indicate that opposing teeth that approach one another: 1) perpendicular to the occlusal plane (crushing) result in pits; 2) parallel to the occlusal plane (shearing) result in striations in the direction of movement; and 3) oblique to the occlusal plane (45°) result in both striations and pits. Results further suggest that different food types and abrasive loads affect the propensity to accumulate microwear features independent of feature shapes. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 08/2015; DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22823
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives The estimation of living body mass from skeletal dimensions is an important component of many studies of early hominins and more recent human archaeological remains. Most previous investigations have concentrated on weight-bearing elements of the lower limb, in particular the femoral head. In this study, we develop new body mass estimation equations derived from measurements of the knee in a modern sample of known body mass, and use them to estimate body mass in 11 fossil hominin specimens (including Au. africanus, Au. afarensis, and early Homo). Materials and Methods The reference sample consisted of 100 living subjects who participated in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Mediolateral breadth measurements were taken from radiographs of the knee, and regressed against recorded body weight to generate body mass estimation equations. Results Knee dimensions were generally found to be good predictors of body mass in the modern human sample, with median absolute percent prediction errors of 7 to 9% (comparable to or better than previously reported equations derived from the femoral head). Taxon-average estimated body masses were 46.1 kg for Au. afarensis, 38.4 kg for Au. africanus, and 53.6 kg for early Homo. Discussion Estimates for early Homo were similar to or smaller than those generated previously from the femoral head. Estimates for australopiths, however, were larger than those generated from femoral head equations. This result is consistent with other evidence that the femoral head was relatively unloaded in australopiths compared with Homo, possibly due to subtle differences in gait.
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 07/2015; DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22789
  • 84th Annual Meeting of the; 03/2015