If you have ever shortlisted journals for a manuscript, you have almost certainly met the journal impact factor. Supervisors mention it, colleagues compare it, and some journals display it prominently on their home pages. Yet few researchers are ever told, plainly, what the number means, how it is worked out, and where it stops being useful. This guide explains the journal impact factor in plain language, so you can use it as one tool among several when choosing where to submit, rather than letting a single number make the decision for you.
The short version is this: the impact factor is a citation average for a journal, not a quality score for your paper. It can tell you something about how often a journal's recent articles are cited on average, but it cannot tell you whether your paper is good, whether it will be cited, whether the journal is the right home for your topic, or whether its peer review is careful and fair. If you are new to publishing, start with our guide on how to publish a research paper, then return here to judge journals with clearer eyes.
The journal impact factor is a metric published by Clarivate, based on citation data in its Web of Science databases. In simple terms, it answers one question: on average, how often were a journal's recent articles cited in a particular year? A journal whose recent articles attract many citations will have a higher figure than one whose recent articles attract few.
Three points follow immediately. First, the impact factor belongs to the journal, not to you. Your article does not inherit the journal's figure, and your article's own citations are counted separately over time. Second, it is an average, and averages hide variation: a journal's average can be lifted by a small number of highly cited articles while most of its articles receive modest attention.
The calculation is straightforward once you see it as a fraction. For a given year, take all the citations made in that year to articles the journal published in the two preceding years. That is the top of the fraction. Divide it by the number of citable articles the journal published in those same two preceding years, and the result is the journal's impact factor for that year. Citable articles generally means original research articles and review articles, rather than editorials, letters, or news items.
Two consequences follow. If a journal published very few articles, a handful of highly cited papers can move its average sharply. If it published many, the average is steadier but slower to change, which is why small or young journals can show large swings from year to year. The two-year window also rewards journals whose articles are cited quickly, and says less about work that takes longer to be noticed, such as studies in slow-moving fields or work that influences practice gradually rather than through immediate citations.
What it does measure is citation attention, averaged across a journal's recent citable articles, within the database that produces it. If you want a rough sense of how frequently a journal's articles are cited by other researchers, it gives you that in a standardised form that lets you compare journals tracked in the same way.
What it does not measure is longer and more important. It does not measure the quality of your individual paper, the rigour of a journal's peer review, the fairness of its editorial decisions, the relevance of a journal to your specific topic, or the experience you will have as an author. It does not measure whether a journal's readers include the practitioners, policymakers, or fellow researchers you most want to reach. It does not measure teaching value, clinical usefulness, policy influence, or importance for a local community, all of which matter greatly in fields such as veterinary and animal science. A paper that changes farming practice in one region may be enormously valuable even if it is cited less often than a theoretical paper read worldwide, and no citation average captures that difference.
The most important limitation is that citation habits differ sharply between fields. In a fast-moving field where researchers publish frequently and cite recent work heavily, average citation counts are naturally higher than in a field where papers are longer, fewer, and cited over many years. Comparing the impact factor of a journal in one field with a journal in a completely different field is therefore misleading. The only fair comparison is between journals serving a similar field and a similar kind of research, and even then the comparison is rough.
Article type matters too. Review articles, which summarise many studies, are typically cited more often than original research articles, so a journal publishing many reviews can show a higher average without its original research being cited any more often. All citations count the same in the calculation, whether they praise, criticise, or merely mention a paper.
Other limitations are structural. Journals published in English, and journals based in regions heavily represented in the underlying database, tend to be cited more readily than journals serving other languages or regions, regardless of quality. Self-citation, where a journal's articles frequently cite other articles in the same journal, can also inflate a figure, which is why unusually high self-citation deserves scrutiny rather than admiration.
The most common misuse is treating the impact factor as a verdict on a paper or a person. You will hear phrases such as a high-impact paper, but that phrase does not follow from the metric, which describes a journal's average. A strong paper in a modest journal remains a strong paper, and a weak paper in a prominent journal remains a weak paper.
A second misuse is chasing the highest number at any cost. Submitting first to the highest-scoring journal in a broad field, regardless of scope fit, often leads to a desk rejection for being out of scope, followed by months lost and a manuscript reshaped for a journal that was never the right home. Desperation to publish in a high-scoring venue can also push researchers towards journals that promise quick, easy acceptance. Treat any such promise as a warning sign: be wary of any journal that offers guaranteed acceptance, unusually fast publication without peer review, or a metric it cannot document from an official source. Legitimate peer review takes time and sometimes ends in rejection.
A third danger is invented or borrowed metrics. Some disreputable journals display impressive-looking scores with names similar to the real impact factor, or claim a figure without saying who calculated it or from which database. Always verify a claim at its official source before you rely on it, and be especially careful with journals that contact you with unsolicited invitations, flattering language, and pressure to submit quickly. Our guide on how journals get indexed in Scopus and Web of Science explains how genuine indexing works and why it cannot be claimed into existence.
The impact factor is not the only journal metric. CiteScore, published by Elsevier from Scopus data, uses a longer citation window and counts a broader range of document types, so it tends to move more slowly and to suit fields where citations accumulate over several years. The SCImago Journal Rank, known as SJR, weights citations according to the prestige of the citing journal, so a citation from a highly regarded journal counts more than one from a little-known journal.
None of these metrics is the correct one in any absolute sense. Each answers a slightly different question, each draws on a different database, and each has its own blind spots. A journal may rank higher on one metric than another for entirely legitimate reasons, such as publishing more reviews or serving a faster-citing field. The table below summarises the main differences in plain terms.
| Metric | What it broadly reflects | Key thing to remember |
|---|---|---|
| Journal Impact Factor | Average citations in one year to articles from the previous two years | A journal average, not a score for your paper |
| CiteScore | Citations over a longer window, across more document types | Moves more slowly; useful for slower-citing fields |
| SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) | Citations weighted by the standing of the citing journal | Not directly comparable with unweighted averages |
| Acceptance rate context | How selective a journal is, where it reports this openly | Selectivity is not quality, and many journals do not report it |
Start with fit, not with figures. Read the journal's aims and scope, then read several recent articles it has published on topics close to yours. Ask whether your paper would sit naturally beside them, whether its readers would recognise your methods, and whether its length, structure, and style match what the journal publishes. Our guide on how to choose the right journal for your research paper walks through this shortlisting process in detail, and it is worth following before any metric enters the picture.
Once you have a shortlist of journals that genuinely fit your paper, the impact factor can help you order them. Look at each journal's figure over several years rather than a single year, check whether the journal is listed in the official source for the metric claimed, and compare only within your field. If a journal on your shortlist has no impact factor, ask why: it may be new, it may serve a specialist or regional audience, or it may simply not be tracked by that particular database. None of those reasons is, on its own, a reason to reject it. For context, the Global Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences is a journal in its launch phase, with its ISSN and DOI still in application, so it does not yet have an impact factor; it should be judged, like any new journal, on its scope, editorial standards, and peer review rather than on a metric it cannot yet possess.
Then weigh the practical factors that shape your experience as an author. Examine the peer review model and what the journal says about its process, because careful review improves your paper even when it asks for hard revisions. Check publication charges and waiver policies before you submit, not after acceptance, and read our explainer on APC waivers in open access journals if cost is a concern for you. Consider the licence under which your article will appear, since an open access licence determines how freely others can read and share your work.
Use this checklist once you have a shortlist, and work through it for each candidate journal. First, does the journal's scope clearly cover your topic, and have you read recent articles that resemble yours? Second, have you verified any metric or indexing claim against its official source, rather than accepting a badge on the journal's website? Third, is the peer review model stated clearly, along with an editorial team and contact details you can verify? Fourth, are the publication charges, waiver options, and licence stated transparently before submission? Fifth, does the journal's readership include the researchers, practitioners, or decision-makers you most want to reach?
If a journal passes those checks, the impact factor can take its proper place: one piece of evidence about citation attention, weighed alongside fit, review quality, cost, and audience. If a journal fails those checks, no impact factor, however high, repairs the problem.
These authoritative external resources explain the metric and the journal lists mentioned in this guide:
What does a journal impact factor actually measure?
It measures the average number of citations received in a given year by articles published in that journal during the two preceding years. It is a journal-level average, not a measure of any single article, author, or study.
Does publishing in a high impact factor journal mean my paper will be widely read or cited?
No. A journal average says nothing certain about your individual paper. Some articles in high-scoring journals receive few citations, while articles in modest journals can be widely read, cited, and used in practice.
Can a new journal have an impact factor?
Not immediately. A journal needs a record of published articles and citations over time before such a metric can be calculated. For example, the Global Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences is in its launch phase, with its ISSN and DOI still in application, so it does not yet have an impact factor.
Should I submit only to the journal with the highest impact factor in my field?
No. Scope fit, readership, peer review quality, publication fees, and the time your work can afford to wait usually matter more. A paper in the right journal for its topic and audience serves you better than a paper sent to the wrong journal because of one number.
How can I check whether a journal's claimed impact factor is genuine?
Check the claim against the official source, the Master Journal List published by Clarivate, rather than trusting a badge or statement on the journal's own website. If you cannot find the journal there, treat the claim with caution.
Is the impact factor the same as CiteScore or SJR?
No. They are different metrics from different providers, using different citation windows, different databases, and different calculation methods. They can point in similar directions, but their numbers are not interchangeable.