Journals-of-Prognostics-and-Health-Management: a curated journal index for IFD and RUL research
智能故障诊断和寿命预测期刊（Journals of Intelligent Fault Diagnosis and Remaining Useful Life）
At a glance
- What is it?
- This repository is not software. It is a maintained Markdown index of English journals that publish intelligent fault diagnosis and remaining useful life work, annotated with Chinese partition tables, impact factors and society rankings. The value is in the curation and the update log, and the main risk is that it is one person's reading list.
- Who is it for?
- Use this index if you are new to intelligent fault diagnosis or RUL and need a first shortlist of English venues with Chinese evaluation metadata attached, or if you need to check whether a target journal sits on a warning list before submitting. Do not use it as an authority on scope: the README itself warns that some listed journals publish IFD work only within their own subject range, and the tables carry no per-journal scope notes.
- Can I use it commercially?
- Not without permission. GitHub finds no licence file in the repository, and without a licence all rights are reserved by default: you may read the code but not reuse it. Check the README, or ask the authors, before using it.
- Is it still maintained?
- Yes. The repository last received commits 18 days ago.
- What is it written in?
- GitHub does not report a main language for this repository.
Answers come from the project's GitHub data, last synced on September 15, 2026, and from our analysis. They are not legal advice.
DEEP OPEN-SOURCE ANALYSIS
A reading list, not a library: what this repository actually is
The name suggests a journal. The repository is a Markdown document. Its stated purpose, in the README's own words, is to help readers find high-quality papers in intelligent fault diagnosis and remaining useful life quickly, and to help them place their own manuscripts in a suitable venue to improve submission success. The author describes having done a lot of unproductive work when first entering the field, and frames the list as a way to shorten that phase for others. That framing matters for how you evaluate the project. There is no code to install, no model to train, no API to call. The artifact is a table of English journals, each row carrying a Chinese partition label, an impact factor, a subcategory partition, a CCF or CAAI grade where one exists, society T-tier rankings, an open access flag, and a link to a third-party journal page. The audience is Chinese graduate students and early-career researchers in PHM and fault diagnosis who are choosing where to submit. If you are outside that evaluation system, the ranking columns will mean little to you, but the journal list itself is still a reasonable map of where this literature appears.
What each row encodes, and why the columns are not interchangeable
The table columns are doing different jobs and the README is explicit that different departments weight them differently. Computer science and software departments tend to recognise the CCF list or the Tsinghua computer science ranking; other departments generally recognise the Chinese Academy of Sciences partition, or a list drawn up by the school or college itself. Society rankings such as the Chinese Association for Science and Technology high-quality journal catalogue are described as gaining recognition. The README also notes that some departments weight IEEE Transactions very highly, which is a reminder that the same row can be read as strong or weak depending on who is reading it. Two conventions are worth knowing before you scan the table. A value of N means the journal is not in the CCF or CAAI recommended list, which is an absence of a grade rather than a negative grade. A value of 0 means no CAS partition exists for that journal. The 2025 update added a rule that when every subcategory partition is lower than the major-category partition, the subcategory is annotated, because some departments assess awards on subcategory partitions alone. Arrows in the partition column mark a promotion or demotion relative to the previous year.
The update log is the real maintenance surface
The README reads as a changelog going back to 2022, and the entries tell you which external tables the project tracks: SCI impact factors each June, the CAS upgraded partition each December or March, the CCF recommended list, the CAAI international conference and journal catalogue, the Chinese Society of Electronics and Chinese Institute of Electronics high-quality journal catalogues, and the CAS early warning journal lists. The warning list is the most operationally useful column in the whole document. A journal appearing on the 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025 or 2026 warning list is a submission risk that no impact factor compensates for, and the README links each year's list directly. The update cadence is tied to the publication of those external tables rather than to a release schedule, and there are no releases in the repository metadata. The default branch is gh-pages, which is the branch GitHub Pages serves from, so the rendered document is the deliverable and the Markdown is the source. Recent entries credit named doctoral students from Beijing Jiaotong University for helping compile and summarise the tables. That is the maintenance model: one maintainer plus occasional volunteer contributions, with issues used for corrections and additions.
Getting the list onto your screen
There is nothing to build. The rendered page is served from the gh-pages branch, so the fastest route is to open the repository's GitHub Pages URL in a browser. To keep a local copy you clone the branch and read the Markdown directly, which is useful because the tables are wide and easier to search as text. The commands are the ordinary ones: git clone followed by the repository URL, then git checkout gh-pages if your clone lands on a different default, then open the README file in an editor. Because the content is a table, plain text search is the practical interface. Searching for a journal name returns the row with its partition, impact factor and society tiers on the same line. Searching for a warning-list year returns the link to that year's list. If you want to propose a journal that is missing, the README asks for an issue rather than a pull request, and the contribution note says the list may be incomplete and welcomes additions. There is no configuration file, no environment variable and no dependency to install.
Where the index stops being useful
The README states plainly that the recommendations are the author's own summary from reading papers and may be incomplete. That is the central limitation, and it has practical consequences. There is no stated inclusion criterion, so you cannot tell whether a journal is absent because it was judged unsuitable or because nobody got around to adding it. The table has no per-journal scope notes, and the README warns that some journals do publish intelligent fault diagnosis work but that you must check whether your research object falls inside the journal's range before choosing it. A row in this table therefore tells you nothing about whether your specific paper fits. The metadata also ages. Impact factors and partitions are republished annually, and the README's own history shows entries being corrected for dead links and updated in batches. If you are reading a snapshot taken between update cycles, a partition arrow or a warning-list status may already be stale. Finally, the ranking columns are specific to the Chinese evaluation system. A researcher in Europe or North America choosing a venue for a fault diagnosis paper will find the journal names useful and the partition columns close to noise.
How this differs from a general journal database
Services such as LetPub, 小木虫 and SCIMAGO, which the README links through ablesci pages, cover far more journals and carry user discussion, acceptance timelines and other influence metrics. Their coverage is broad and their curation is not. This repository's difference is the opposite trade: narrow scope, hand-picked rows, and columns aligned to the specific evaluation tables that Chinese PHM students are judged against, including the society T-tier rankings and the early warning lists that general databases often bury. If you need acceptance-experience reports or submission timelines, the ablesci pages linked from each row are the better destination. If you need a shortlist of venues in this subfield with the relevant Chinese ranking metadata already lined up in one row, this table saves you the assembly work. The two are complementary rather than competing, and the README treats the external pages as the detail layer beneath its own summary.
Licence, reuse and what to verify before you cite it
The repository metadata does not state a licence, and the README contains no licence section. Without an explicit grant, the default position is that the content is not licensed for reuse, so treat copying the tables into your own document as something to check with the maintainer first rather than assume. The same caution applies to the third-party tables the README links: the CAS partition, the CCF list, the CAAI catalogue and the early warning lists are published by other organisations, and this repository is a pointer to them, not a redistribution licence. For citation in a thesis or a group wiki, the safest path is to cite the original ranking body for any number you use and treat this repository as the index that led you there. On maintenance cost, the burden is low for a reader and moderate for the maintainer: each year brings at least an impact factor refresh, a partition refresh and a warning list refresh, plus link rot repairs, which the changelog shows happening repeatedly since 2022.
Editorial conclusion
Use this index if you are new to intelligent fault diagnosis or RUL and need a first shortlist of English venues with Chinese evaluation metadata attached, or if you need to check whether a target journal sits on a warning list before submitting. Do not use it as an authority on scope: the README itself warns that some listed journals publish IFD work only within their own subject range, and the tables carry no per-journal scope notes. Before relying on any row, open the linked journal page and the linked ranking source, confirm the current impact factor and partition against the official table for the year you are being evaluated on, and check that the journal's aims and scope actually accept your topic. The repository is a starting point for a shortlist, not a substitute for the evaluation rules of your own school or college.
Community notes