Addiction Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs, Wiley

Journal description

Addiction was established in 1884 and has been in continuous publication ever since the longest established journal in its field. It has built up a reputation in that time for scientific quality for the diversity of material it publishes and for its pioneering role in stimulating and leading debate. It is committed to promoting communication - between disciplines between cultures and between scientists practitioners and policy-makers. Addiction has been successful in these goals because of the huge cast of top specialists throughout the world who contribute to its work through their rigorous peer reviewing writing advice and support in many other ways. We have strengthened commitment to internationalism and to our authors by recently establishing regional offices for the Americas and for Australasia to speed the handling of papers and bring authors and editors closer. Addiction also receives wide media coverage internationally.

Current impact factor: 4.60

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2013 / 2014 Impact Factor 4.596
2012 Impact Factor 4.577
2011 Impact Factor 4.313
2010 Impact Factor 4.145
2009 Impact Factor 3.842
2008 Impact Factor 4.244
2007 Impact Factor 4.014
2006 Impact Factor 4.088
2005 Impact Factor 3.696
2004 Impact Factor 3.006
2003 Impact Factor 3.241
2002 Impact Factor 2.877
2001 Impact Factor 2.399
2000 Impact Factor 2.494
1999 Impact Factor 1.812
1998 Impact Factor 1.62
1997 Impact Factor 1.4
1996 Impact Factor 1.571
1995 Impact Factor 1.373
1994 Impact Factor 1.238

Impact factor over time

Impact factor
Year

Additional details

5-year impact 4.95
Cited half-life 7.20
Immediacy index 1.32
Eigenfactor 0.03
Article influence 1.68
Website Addiction website
Other titles Addiction (Abingdon, England: Online)
ISSN 1360-0443
OCLC 37914840
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Wiley

  • 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
    • On a non-profit server
    • 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

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe work undertaken over a 20-year period, investigating overdose characteristics among survivors, effects of acute heroin administration, clustering of risk of overdose fatality and potential interventions to reduce this fatal outcome. Privileged-access interviewers obtained data from non-treatment as well as treatment samples; experimental study of drop in oxygen saturation following heroin/opiate injection; investigation of clusterings of death following prison release and treatment termination; and study of target populations as intervention work-force, including family as well as peers, and action research built into pilot implementation. Overdose has been experienced by about half of heroin/opiate misusers, with even higher proportions having witnessed an overdose, and with high levels of willingness to intervene. Heroin/opiates are associated with the majority of drug-related deaths, despite relative scarcity of use. Heroin injection causes a rapid drop in oxygen saturation, recovering only slowly over the next half hour. Deaths from drug overdose are greatly more likely on prison release and post-discharge from detoxification and other in-patient or residential settings. High levels of declared willingness to intervene are matched by active interventions. Both drug-using peers and family members show ability to improve knowledge and gain confidence from training. Audit study of take-home schemes finds approximately 10% of dispensed naloxone is used in real-life emergency situations. Overdose is experienced by most users, with heroin/opiates contributing disproportionately to drug overdose deaths. High-risk times (e.g. after prison release) are now clearly identified. Peers and family are a willing potential intervention work-force, but are rarely trained or given pre-supply of naloxone. Large-scale naloxone provision (e.g. national across Scotland and Wales) is now being delivered, while large-scale randomized trials (e.g. N-ALIVE prison-release trial) are finally under way. Better naloxone products and better-organized provision are needed. The area does not need more debate; it now needs proper implementation alongside good scientific study. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:27-35. DOI:10.1111/add.12904
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1976 Edwards & Gross proposed the concept of the alcohol dependence syndrome, based on the clinical observation that heavy drinkers manifested an inter-related clustering of signs and symptoms. That this modest 'provisional description' turned out to be so significant and influential is perhaps unsurprising when the context in which it was made is appreciated. Griffith Edwards and his colleagues at the Maudsley Hospital had undergone a rigorous 3-year training in clinical psychiatry, during which they had been taught to think critically and were grounded in the art of clinical observation. As he assessed patients for various alcohol research studies he realized that there was a clustering of certain elements. Thus clinical observation and an appreciation of the patient's drinking history contributed to the genesis of the concept. This paper reflects on the integration of his rigorous training at the Maudsley, his enquiring mind and encyclopaedic knowledge of the historical and research literature which enabled him to formulate a testable hypothesis about the alcohol dependence syndrome. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:12-15. DOI:10.1111/add.12908
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110(7):1069-1070. DOI:10.1111/add.12953
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides a personal memoir of historical work at the Addiction Research Unit, in particular the genesis of the book Opium and the People. This topic had policy significance for US drug policy and a competing US study was funded. The development of the substance use history field is surveyed, and its expansion in recent times through a focused professional association and a critical mass of researchers in the area, covering a wide range of topics. The politics of using history in this area can be problematic. History now sits at the policy table more easily, but there is still a tendency for professionals in the field to use (and misuse) it, rather than calling on the interpretive and challenging approach they would obtain from professional historians. The paper calls for historians and others to move beyond a substance specific focus and to avoid the tendency for 'naive history' implicit in using only digitized industry archives as the sole source. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:23-26. DOI:10.1111/add.12903
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Griffith Edwards made empirical contributions early in his career to the literature on Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), but the attitude he adopted towards AA and other peer-led mutual help initiatives constitutes an even more important legacy. Unlike many treatment professionals who dismissed the value of AA or were threatened by its non-professional approach, Edwards was consistently respectful of the organization. However, he never became an uncritical booster of AA or overgeneralized what could be learnt from it. Future scholarly and clinical endeavors concerning addiction-related mutual help initiatives will benefit by continuing Edwards' tradition of 'rigorous sympathy'. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:16-18. DOI:10.1111/add.12900
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110(7):1072-1073. DOI:10.1111/add.12975
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Griffith Edwards, unusually in the 1970s, saw tobacco use as falling within the remit of addiction research, and brought Michael Russell to the Addiction Research Unit [ARU] to initiate research into smoking. The work of the tobacco section of ARU paved the way to a better understanding of tobacco dependence and to developing nicotine replacement treatments. Michael Russell pioneered the idea of attractive nicotine replacement products with an acceptable safety profile replacing cigarettes on the open market and ending the tobacco epidemic, envisaging a transition from medicinal and temporary 'nicotine replacement' to recreational and potentially permanent 'smoking replacement'. Mike's prediction that the pharmaceutical industry would develop such devices did not materialize. Instead, two such products were generated by the tobacco industry (snus) and independent developers (electronic cigarettes). Another of Mike's hopes was that regulators would adopt rational policies, and that tobacco control activists would become supportive of smoking replacement once they thought through the implications. Until now, the 'smoking replacement' idea has been met with vigorous opposition from some tobacco control activists. The voices of researchers with historical links to ARU are prominent in arguing in favour of harm reduction and e-cigarettes. The most important debate ever to occur in tobacco control is under way and it carries the signature of Griffith Edwards' ARU. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:19-22. DOI:10.1111/add.12905
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes three important strands in the career of Griffith Edwards that define him as a leader and an innovator. Believing that education and science were critical for the development of addiction as a profession and as a field of inquiry, his approach was multi-faceted: educating all doctors to appreciate the fundamental issues in addiction; training psychiatrists in the complexity of 'dual diagnosis' and specific specialist intervention; and teaching that addiction could be a chronic condition which required care management over the life course. These three inter-related areas are directly related to the need for a range of practitioners to have an understanding of addiction so that patients can be properly managed. The greater our understanding of the nature of addiction behaviour, the more likely the potential to optimize treatment and train practitioners from different professional disciplines. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:47-49. DOI:10.1111/add.12909
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the early work of Griffith Edwards and his colleagues on alcohol in the criminal justice system and outlines the direction of research in this area in the Addiction Research Unit in the 1960s and 1970s. The paper outlines the link between that work and work undertaken in the more recent past in this area. The key papers of the authors are reviewed and the impact of this work on policy and practice is discussed. There is a rich seam of work on deprived and incarcerated populations that has been under way at the Addiction Research Unit and subsequently the National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London. Griffith Edwards initiated this work that explores the risks and problems experienced by people moving between the health and criminal justice system, and demonstrated the need for better care and continuity across this system. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:54-58. DOI:10.1111/add.12910
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110(7):1118-1119. DOI:10.1111/add.12957
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110(7):1070-1072. DOI:10.1111/add.12966
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110(7):1074-1075. DOI:10.1111/add.12984
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:1-3. DOI:10.1111/add.12928
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes the political origins of the National Treatment Outcomes Research Study (NTORS) and the outputs and impacts of the study. NTORS was designed to meet the request of the Health Secretary and of a Government Task Force for evidence about the effectiveness of the national addiction treatment services. NTORS was a prospective cohort study which investigated outcomes over a 5-year period of drug users admitted to four major treatment modalities: in-patient treatment, residential rehabilitation, methadone reduction and methadone maintenance programmes. The study investigated treatments delivered under day-to-day operating conditions. Outcomes showed substantial reductions in illicit drug use and reduced injecting risk behaviours. These changes were accompanied by improved psychological and physical health and by reductions in criminal behaviour. However, not all outcomes were so positive. There was a continuing mortality rate in the cohort of about 1% per year, and many clients continued to drink heavily throughout the 5-year follow-up. NTORS findings informed and influenced UK addiction treatment policy both at the time and subsequently. The findings were influential in supporting an immediate increase in funding for treatment, and Government Ministers have repeatedly cited NTORS as evidence of the effectiveness of addiction treatment. One finding that received political attention was that of the cost savings provided by treatment through reductions in crime. This important finding led to an unanticipated consequence of NTORS; namely, the greater focus on crime reduction that has increasingly been promoted as a political and social priority for drug misuse treatment. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:50-53. DOI:10.1111/add.12906
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110(7):1060. DOI:10.1111/add.12959
  • Addiction 07/2015; 110(7):1169-1170. DOI:10.1111/add.12955
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper traces the modern history of alcohol and drug policy research through a series of four monographs that were written collaboratively by international groups of career scientists. The books promoted the view, supported by a considerable amount of evidence, that alcohol and drug problems can be reduced, if not prevented, through organized policy action by governments and public health organizations. The books used a problem-focused integrative approach to align research more effectively with public policy. A common thread that runs throughout the monographs is the influence of Professor Griffith Edwards. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:40-46. DOI:10.1111/add.12911
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper offers some reflections on Griffith Edwards' continuing legacy with particular reference to his and Milton Gross's formulation of alcohol dependence as a 'provisional' clinical syndrome. The ideas and language from this seminal paper have heavily influenced international diagnostic classification systems. However, it is observed that there has also been significant (and increasing) divergence-in particular around the original proposal that dependence and negative alcohol-related consequences are independent, if inevitably inter-related dimensions. This is most apparent in the conflation of alcohol-related problems and dependence phenomena implicit in DSM-V. It is also argued that the alcohol dependence syndrome (ADS) has substantial continuing influence and relevance to current clinical practice. The hypothesis that degree of alcohol dependence is a useful indicator of the possibility of a return to controlled drinking continues to receive support, and underpins the widespread implementation of brief interventions for 'early stage' problem drinkers. It is suggested that the kind of careful clinical observations that underpinned the original concept of alcohol dependence have continuing relevance to the formulation of improved understanding, measurement instruments, diagnostic systems and clinical responses. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:8-11. DOI:10.1111/add.12901
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Griffith Edwards' proposal for the alcohol 'treatment versus advice' study-also known as 'the family study'-illustrates how ahead of his time he was. The sample consisted of 100 married men who attended with their wives for a comprehensive assessment. Those randomized to 'advice' were told that the responsibility for attaining the goal of abstinence lay in the patient's hands, supported by his wife, that no further intervention was indicated, but that the research social worker would 'keep a watching brief' by visiting the home every 4 weeks for 12 months. Across multiple outcome measures there was no evidence that 'treatment'-considerable in amount by modern standards-was better than advice. Conversely, marital variables such as wives' alcohol-related hardship were significantly predictive of the outcome of the drinking problem. The study was arguably one of the principal sources of the whole 'brief treatments'/'brief interventions' movement which gathered momentum from then on and which, arguably, has itself become the conventional wisdom. The findings questioned the very nature of the addiction change process, suggesting that non-specific factors might be the more important, an issue that still remains unresolved. It is less clear that the study has left such a mark in terms of the development of a family and social model of addiction treatment and change. For example, it continues to be a struggle to help treatment organizations to become more family-inclusive. © 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
    Addiction 07/2015; 110 Suppl S2:4-7. DOI:10.1111/add.12902