Let us talk about ourselves a little.
Data on consultation of the site www.rivistadipsicologiaclinica.it
Let us have a look at the provider’s figures on the site of Rivista di Psicologia Clinica on line about the number of visits to the RPC site and the number articles downloaded by readers.
Concerning the visits:
since the RPC started in July 2006, the total number of visits to the RPC site is 79,134.
Let us look at the distribution of the visits during that time:
The graph shows the number of visits month by month for the 23 months from July 06 to May 08.
As we can see, there has been a constant increase; from the first months with fewer than 2,000 visits, to April and May 2008 with about 8,000 visits per month.
Let us now look at the number of downloads. This is the most significant figure for a scientific journal: it indicates, with a fair approximation, the number of people who read the journal; in fact it shows the number of times someone downloads RPC articles from the site: to read, consult, file, use for something.
Since the RPC first came out (July 06) to today (May 08) there have been 27,374 downloads.
The downloads are 34.6% of the visits. This means that in more than a third of the visits, readers download articles from the RPC. This seems to be very significant data about the use of the RPC.
Let us now look at the distribution of the downloads in the 23 months of the RPC’s existence:
Here too there has been a significant growth in the use of the RPC, with slight drops corresponding to the months before the publication of each new issue. From the 500 downloads of the early months, there has been a constant increase to reach over three thousand last month.
The table shows the number of visits and downloads in the July 06-May 08 period:
Let us now consider the geographical distribution of the visits. The provider warns that it is possible to know the geographical origin for only 48.60% of the visits.
Here is the visit distribution by “continent”:
It can be seen that Latin America is missing: perhaps circulation in that continent would require the Spanish translation of the RPC.
In particular let us see the visits made in the USA:
And those made in Italy:
Let us now look at the distribution of the visits in Europe, in the period Dec. 07 – May 08:
The distribution of visits in North America, again in the period Dec. 07 – May 08:
In the same period there were 107 visits from Japan, 78 from Australia, 47 from China, 22 from Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, 10 from India and Turkey, 15 from Israel, 40 from South Africa, 5 from Cameroon and from various other countries.
The last aspect to consider concerns the average time spent in the site on each visit: this goes from 50s sec. in Jul 2006 to 3 min.10 sec. in May 2008; in this case too the figure has been constantly rising.
Let us now look at the data on the year 2007: the first issue came out in June 2007, while the third issue came out at the end of February 2008. At the end of May 2008 the first issue for 2008 had still not come out. We in fact intend to time the RPC issues as follows: 1st issue: June; 2nd issue: November; 3rd issue: February.
Between June 2007 and May 2008 we had 19,988 downloads. That is on average 6,663 downloads for each issue of RPC/2007. It is reasonable to estimate the readers of each issue of RPC at about 5,000.
A little under half the readers use English. Most of the readers using English are from the USA. We can therefore say that 2,000 regular readers of the RPC come from the USA.
Comments
The readers of the RPC have presumably understood the cultural line taken by the journal. The journal was set up to spread scientific production in the field of Italian Clinical Psychology, in Italy and abroad.That is why the RPC also comes out in the English version.
The key word defining the cultural line is “Clinical Psychology”. We know that the Italian Clinical Psychology field has multiple scientific and cultural spirits. We try to welcome all of them and to stimulate debate among these different standpoints. We also promote a cultural policy that underlines the importance of the relationship in Clinical Psychology, rather than individualistic orientations; we highlight the clinical psychologist’s interest in fostering development, rather than in correcting deficits; and the focus on promoting thought about the emotions, instead of improving the disorders diagnosed by starting from psychopathology repertoires.
We feel that the readership of the journal reflects the cultural line it follows.
We also feel that the circulation of the RPC in the USA and more generally in its English edition clearly shows that the studies, theoretical perspectives and research published in the RPC are of interest not solely to Italian scholars and professionals.
We would like to know more about our readers, and we would like to collect their comments on the RPC, to improve the journal so that it will increasingly respond to the expectations of those who consult it.
For this reason, in n.1, the June issue, where this editorial appears, we are publishing a short questionnaire in which we invite interested readers to tell us something about themselves and to give an assessment of some aspects of the RPC.
We would also like to open a debate with readers in Italy and abroad about the RPC’s scientific line on its main issues: in particular on the question of community living and the problems of living together in social contexts, discussing the role of the clinical psychologist in this area. We will do this before long.
In the meantime, heartfelt thanks to those who read us and encourage us to continue along the path we have taken, on behalf of everyone working at the RPC, the Management Committee and the Editorial Committee.
Notes
* Full professor of Clinical Psychology in the Faculty of Psychology 1 at the “Sapienza” University of Rome, head of the degree course “Clinical intervention for the person, the group and the institutions”, full member of the ‘Società Psicoanalitica Italiana’ and of the International Psychoanalytical Association. Top
|
