SMITH COLLEGE STUDIES IN SOCIAL WORK 投稿经验-刊鹿论文编译

Editorial

Abstract:

We are living through turbulent times in the nation’s history. Faced with many serious problems that range from the effect of climate change on our environment, the rise in gun violence especially mass shootings, humane immigration policy, education and election integrity, we are being challenged to dig deep into our souls and to struggle with the nuances of different policy positions. Each of these are serious policy issues with long histories and new complications. Policy issues are always two-sided issues that reflect value choices and political power. Neither set of value choices is the right one or the wrong one, each has intrinsic worth and significance, because the choices we make today will effect the future. Over the last four years, we’ve been challenged to examine the pros and cons of the policies put forth by the Trump Administration beginning with the travel ban imposed on Muslims from five predominately Muslim countries, an Executive Order directing federal funding for the construction of a wall along the Mexico and US border and calling for an end to the abuses of parole and asylum provisions of immigration law and building facilities to hold undocumented immigrants near the Mexican border. Later we were jolted into an alternative reality of zero tolerance policies and the separation of Latina children from their families, the official policies of the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump Administration. Many of these policies violate the very ethical standards that social workers pledge to follow, creating ethical and moral dilemmas for those who work with the populations directly affected. Now Donald Trump is the third sitting President who has been impeached by the House of Representatives, where a majority of the representatives are Democratic. The President has been charged with two articles of impeachment: one on abuse of power, the other obstruction of Congress. The first pertains to Trump’s attempt to get the President of Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden, the President’s political rival, Biden’s son Hunter Biden and Burisma, a Ukrainian gas production company. House Democrats accuse the President of betraying public trust by withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the investigation. They further argue that the President placed his own interests above those of the country. He was seeking to serve his own interests rather than those of the country. In doing so, Trump abused his power as President. Obstruction of Congress was the second charge. Trump defied subpoenas to provide testimony issued to members of his Administration and refused to release documents requested by the House Intelligence Committee. Presidents are not immune from responding to subpoenas. The full House will vote on the impeachment charges in the next week; if a majority favors the charges then the Senate will hold a trial. The Republicans counter these charges by arguing that the President did nothing wrong. Trump asked the Ukraine President to announce an investigation with valid concerns about corruption; Biden was not a factor. Trump was not trying to undercut Biden politically or to advantage himself with information he could use in the 2020 Presidential campaign against his rival. The Republicans argue that the military funds authorized by Congress to assist with the war between Ukraine and Russia were released therefore there was no attempt to bribe anyone. They (the Republicans) also decry the impeachment process. It (the impeachment process) was unfair. It did not permit SMITH COLLEGE STUDIES IN SOCIAL WORK 2019, VOL. 89, NOS. 3–4, 197–199 https://doi.org/10.1080/00377317.2019.1706318

Author Listing： Joyce E. Everett

Volume： 89

Pages： 197 - 199

DOI： 10.1080/00377317.2019.1706318

Language： English

Journal： Smith College Studies in Social Work

SMITH COLLEGE STUDIES IN SOCIAL WORK

SMITH COLL STUD SOC

影响因子：1.4

是否综述期刊：否

是否OA：否

是否预警：不在预警名单内

发行时间：-

ISSN：0037-7317

发刊频率：-

收录数据库：ESCI/Scopus收录

出版国家/地区：-

出版社：Taylor & Francis

期刊介绍

年发文量	25
国人发稿量	-
国人发文占比	0%
自引率	7.1%
平均录取率	-
平均审稿周期	-
版面费	-
偏重研究方向	SOCIAL WORK-
期刊官网	https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wscs20/current
投稿链接	-

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比	OA被引用占比	撤稿占比	出版后修正文章占比
100.00%	5.77%	-	-

预警情况查看说明

时间	预警情况
2024年02月发布的2024版	不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版	不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版	不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版	不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级：Q2区

版本	按学科	分区
WOS期刊SCI分区 WOS期刊SCI分区是指SCI官方（Web of Science）为每个学科内的期刊按照IF数值排序，将期刊按照四等分的方法划分的Q1-Q4等级，Q1代表质量最高，即常说的1区期刊。（2021-2022年最新版）
	SOCIAL WORK	Q2

关于2019年中科院分区升级版（试行）

分区表升级版（试行）旨在解决期刊学科体系划分与学科发展以及融合趋势的不相容问题。由于学科交叉在当代科研活动的趋势愈发显著，学科体系构建容易引发争议。为了打破学科体系给期刊评价带来的桎梏，“升级版方案”首先构建了论文层级的主题体系，然后分别计算每篇论文在所属主题的影响力，最后汇总各期刊每篇论文分值，得到“期刊超越指数”，作为分区依据。

分区表升级版（试行）的优势：一是论文层级的主题体系既能体现学科交叉特点，又可以精准揭示期刊载文的多学科性；二是采用“期刊超越指数”替代影响因子指标，解决了影响因子数学性质缺陷对评价结果的干扰。整体而言，分区表升级版（试行）突破了期刊评价中学科体系构建、评价指标选择等瓶颈问题，能够更为全面地揭示学术期刊的影响力，为科研评价“去四唯”提供解决思路。相关研究成果经过国际同行的认可，已经发表在科学计量学领域国际重要期刊。

《2019年中国科学院文献情报中心期刊分区表升级版（试行）》首次将社会科学引文数据库（SSCI）期刊纳入到分区评估中。升级版分区表（试行）设置了包括自然科学和社会科学在内的18个大类学科。基础版和升级版（试行）将过渡共存三年时间，推测在此期间各大高校和科研院所仍可能会以基础版为考核参考标准。提示：中科院分区官方微信公众号“fenqubiao”仅提供基础版数据查询，暂无升级版数据，请注意区分。

中科院分区查看说明

版本	大类学科	小类学科	Top期刊	综述期刊
暂无数据