Child Abuse Review: Rising to new heights with our 2017 Impact Factor

I’m not usually one to boast, but as a co-editor of Child Abuse Review I’m feeling really pleased with the latest news from the journal.

2017 Thomson Reuters Journal Impact Factor

The 2017 Thomson Reuters Journal Impact Factors were released this week, and I’m really proud to report that our impact factor for Child Abuse Review has shot up from 1.543 to 2.253!

CAR Impact Factors 2011-17

This is particularly encouraging as we had set our target, in our 2014-19 business plan to increase it to 1.2 by 2017.

The result places the journal 4th out of 42 social work journals and 9th out of 46 in family studies.

 

Publishing high quality research that has an impact on practice

While journal impact factors have their limitations, I think this is a recognition of the fact that we are managing to publish really important, high-quality research in child protection, and that this research does have an impact on practice.

Artwork by Harry Venning
Artwork by Harry Venning

This was also reflected in the 2018 Wiley prizes for the best papers published in Child Abuse Review, which were announced at the BASPCAN congress in April:

 

  1. First Prize – Beyond the Physical Incident Model: How Children Living with Domestic Violence are Harmed By and Resist Regimes of Coercive Control by Emma Katz (Liverpool Hope University) – Published in Volume 25 Issue 1 (2016)

 

  1. Second Prize – The Prevalence of Child Maltreatment across the Globe: Review of a Series of Meta‐Analyses by Marije Stoltenborgh, Marian J. Bakermans‐Kranenburg, Lenneke R.A. Alink and Marinus H. van IJzendoorn (Leiden University) – Published in Volume 24 Issue 1 (2015)

 

  1. Third Prize – Risk and Protective Factors for Physical and Emotional Abuse Victimisation amongst Vulnerable Children in South Africa by Franziska Meinck (University of Oxford), Lucie D. Cluver (University of Oxford, and University of Cape Town), Mark E. Boyes (University of Oxford), Lodrick D. Ndhlovu (Tintswalo Hospital) – Published in Volume 24 Issue 3 (2015).

 

All three of these papers are freely available online for the next year, as are all our editorials and many other papers, so do take a look.

All this could only have been achieved through the hard work of our editorial team, Diane Heath, our editorial manager, the publishing team at Wiley, and, of course, our authors, reviewers and readers. Thank you all.

The challenge and complexities of physical abuse

cover 24_1The latest issue of Child Abuse Review has just been published, with a special focus on child physical abuse. On the background of high media interest in child abuse, there is some research evidence that rates of more severe physical abuse may actually have decreased. This suggests that, perhaps, our societies are becoming less tolerant of physical violence towards children.

While we should celebrate this, there is certainly no cause for complacency. Marije Stoltenborgh and colleagues from the Centre for Child and Family Studies in Leiden have collated data from across the globe on all forms of maltreatment. They report that one in every five children globally report that they have experienced physical abuse during their childhood. While rates do vary between countries, these figures show that we still have a long way to go in protecting children from violence. One important finding from Stoltenborgh’s work, as with many other studies, is that the majority of physical abuse suffered by children never comes to the notice of professionals. Their data suggest that child protection services are only picking up one in every 75 cases of physical abuse. The implications are clear: we need to do better at recognising and responding to abuse, in providing children and young people with opportunities to tell someone about their experiences, and in supporting parents in bringing up their children without resorting to violence.

Professionals working in the child protection field do not have an easy job, and it is far too easy, when things go wrong, to blame the professionals for either not acting quickly enough, or for over-reacting and intervening inappropriately in families’ lives. In a previous paper, I have spoken of an evidence-informed approach to child protection: ‘the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence, integrated with clinical expertise and an understanding of the context of the case, to guide decision making about the care of individual children.’ In order to do this, we need high-quality evidence from research and practice, combined with a good deal of common sense.

 

Other papers in this issue of Child Abuse Review provide some of that evidence: a case series of young children presenting with unexplained rib fractures (in which notably, all children diagnosed as having been abused had other features supporting that diagnosis, and all infants whose fractures were due to bone disease had other risk factors for that); and another case review of histories given by parents of children with abusive fractures (in all cases in their series, the accounts were often vague or uncertain, and frequently multiple accounts were given as the injuries came to light).

 

But that is where common sense and clinical skill need to come in. Child protection work is not straight forward: ‘While it may be possible to draw similarities between cases, and to highlight typical findings, the very nature of child maltreatment is such that complexity exists. While many cases may fit a classic presentation, others will not, and there can be multiple reasons for the manner in which cases present.’ I have previously argued that ‘Finding our way through this complexity requires an authoritative approach, combining a thorough understanding of the circumstances and context of the case, with an appraisal of the evidence base, the practitioner’s own expertise and experience, and the humility to work in partnership with children, their parents or carers, and other professionals.’

 

To see the contents and abstracts of this issue of Child Abuse Review, click here.