PRO-SCIENCE
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate Annual Review of Clinical Psychology as a Pro-Science publisher of review journals. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to peer review and a clean fact check record.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Journal
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is a review journal published by Annual Reviews that covers clinical psychology. According to its about page, “The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology provides comprehensive reviews of significant developments in the field of clinical psychology and psychiatry.”
Founded in 1932, Annual Reviews is a nonprofit academic publishing company based in San Mateo, California. Annuals Reviews publishes over 50 scientific journals of review covering life, physical, biomedical, and social sciences. According to its about page “Annual Reviews is a nonprofit publisher dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society.”
Read our profile on the United States media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
As a nonprofit organization, Annual Reviews relies on a combination of funding sources, including subscriptions and the S20 model, which funds open-access publishing.
Analysis / Bias
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is a review journal that publishes information on clinical psychology. The journal primarily publishes research such as this: Risk and Resilience Among Children with Incarcerated Parents: A Review and Critical Reframing.
Annual Reviews is an open-access/hybrid publisher of scientific journals. There are two types of Open Access Journals, legitimate and predatory, both of which charge the author for publication. Predatory journals often lack peer review and are generally considered not credible. Annual Reviews is considered a legitimate, open-access publisher as they do not charge authors and rely on the s2o method for funding.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Annual Review of Clinical Psychology as a Pro-Science publisher of review journals. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to peer review and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 05/23/2024)
Source: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/clinpsy
Last Updated on May 23, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources