# How to Compare Journal Metrics: A Cheat Sheet ## Quick Answer - Compare journal metrics by their source data, calculation method, and what they actually measure, not by the raw number alone. - Match the metric to your specific goal, such as finding a fast-publication venue, a highly cited outlet, or a journal trusted in your field. - No single metric tells you whether a journal is ethical or reputable, so verify peer review and publication practices separately. ## What Journal Metrics Are and Why They Matter Journal metrics are quantitative measures derived from publication and citation data. They attempt to describe how often articles in a journal are cited, how quickly they are cited, and how a journal compares to others in its field. Researchers use these numbers to shortlist journals for submission, to evaluate where to publish, and sometimes to assess the visibility of their own work. The practical problem is that metrics are not interchangeable. The impact factor measures something different from the h-index, which measures something different from CiteScore or Eigenfactor. Each metric uses a different data source, a different time window, and a different calculation. A journal that ranks highly on one metric may rank modestly on another. Understanding these differences helps you avoid choosing a journal based on a number that does not reflect what you actually need. A second problem is that metrics say nothing about editorial quality. A journal can have a high citation count and still have weak peer review, unclear authorship policies, or poor handling of misconduct. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) describe the expected standards for peer review, authorship, data access, and conflict-of-interest handling. You should check a journal against those practices separately from checking its metrics. ## At a Glance: Journal Metrics Comparison Table | Metric | What It Measures | Data Source | Calculation Basis | Main Strength | Main Limitation | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Journal Impact Factor | Average citations per article in a specific year | Web of Science | Citations in year X to articles published in years X-1 and X-2, divided by number of citable articles | Widely recognized and familiar to most researchers | Two-year window favors fast-citing fields, excludes many journals, and can be skewed by a few highly cited papers | | CiteScore | Average citations per document over four years | Scopus | Citations in year X to documents published in years X-4 through X-1, divided by number of documents | Broader journal coverage and longer window than the impact factor | Includes more document types, which can dilute or inflate the value depending on the journal | | h-index | Author-level or journal-level productivity and citation impact | Multiple sources including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar | A journal has h-index h if h of its articles have at least h citations each | Simple to understand and combines productivity with impact | Does not account for review articles, self-citations, or differences in field citation norms | | Eigenfactor | Influence of a journal in the citation network | Web of Science | Measures how often articles from a journal are cited by other influential journals over five years | Accounts for the source of citations, beyond the count | Less intuitive to interpret and less familiar to most researchers | | Altmetrics | Online attention from news, social media, and policy documents | Various platforms such as PlumX and Altmetric | Tracks mentions of a specific article across non-journal sources | Captures societal and public engagement quickly | Does not measure scholarly citation impact and can be gamed or skewed by a single viral mention | ## How to Compare Journal Metrics Correctly ### Identify What You Are Actually Trying to Measure Before comparing numbers, decide what decision the metric will inform. If you want to know how quickly articles in a journal get cited, the impact factor or CiteScore gives you a rough sense. If you want to know whether a journal is influential among other influential journals, Eigenfactor is more relevant. If you want to know how much public attention a specific paper received, altmetrics is the only option among the common metrics. Write down your goal before you open any journal comparison tool. A clear goal prevents you from defaulting to the most familiar metric, which is usually the impact factor, even when it does not answer your question. ### Check the Data Source Behind Each Metric Each metric draws on a different database. The impact factor uses Web of Science data. CiteScore uses Scopus data. The h-index can be calculated from Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar, and the results differ by source. Eigenfactor is derived from Web of Science. Altmetrics pulls from news outlets, social media platforms, and policy documents. The data source matters because journal coverage varies. A journal indexed in Scopus but not in Web of Science will have a CiteScore but no impact factor. A journal with strong coverage in Google Scholar may show a higher h-index than the same journal measured in Web of Science. When you compare two journals, confirm that both metrics come from the same source. Comparing a Scopus-based CiteScore to a Web of Science-based impact factor is not a fair comparison. ### Compare Within the Same Field Citation behavior differs dramatically across disciplines. Biomedical fields cite recent work heavily, so two-year metrics like the impact factor tend to be higher. Mathematics and humanities fields cite more slowly and rely on older literature, so their two-year metrics are lower even for excellent journals. Comparing a biomedical journal to a mathematics journal using the impact factor is meaningless. Use field-normalized metrics when they are available. Some databases offer metrics that adjust for field differences, such as the Source Normalized Impact per Paper in Scopus. If a field-normalized metric is not available, restrict your comparison to journals in the same subject category. ### Look at the Distribution, beyond the Average The impact factor and CiteScore are averages. Averages hide the distribution of citations across articles. A journal can have a high average because a small number of articles received many citations while most articles received very few. For your own article, what matters is the typical citation count, not the average across all articles. Look at the journal's citation distribution if the data is available. Some databases show the percentage of articles that receive zero citations. A journal with a high impact factor but a large share of uncited articles may not give your paper the visibility you expect. ## Practical Steps for Shortlisting Journals ### Step 1: Define Your Submission Priorities List what matters most to you. Common priorities include speed of peer review, acceptance rate, journal reputation in your specific subfield, open access options, and whether the journal is indexed in the databases your institution recognizes. Rank these priorities before you start looking at metrics. ### Step 2: Build a Candidate List From Multiple Sources Use your reference list to identify journals where related work appears. Ask colleagues where they publish. Use journal finder tools that match your abstract or title to journals in their database. The [National Library of Medicine bookshelf](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) provides access to biomedical reference works that can help you understand the publication landscape in your area. ### Step 3: Pull the Same Metric for Every Candidate For each journal on your list, record the same metric from the same source. If you use the impact factor, record it for every journal from the same year and the same database. If you use CiteScore, do the same. Mixing metrics from different sources across your candidate list makes the comparison invalid. ### Step 4: Verify Editorial Practices Separately Metrics do not tell you whether a journal follows ethical publication practices. Check the journal's stated policies against the [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). Confirm that the journal describes its peer review process, has clear authorship criteria, states its data availability policy, and has a process for handling complaints and misconduct. A journal that fails these checks should be removed from your list regardless of its metrics. ### Step 5: Check Indexing and Access Confirm that the journal is indexed in the databases that matter for your field and your institution. Check whether the journal offers open access and what the associated costs are. If you are funded by the [National Institutes of Health](https://grants.nih.gov/), verify that the journal's policies allow you to comply with public access requirements. ## Records and Measurements for Journal Selection Keep a comparison table for every journal you seriously consider. Record the following for each candidate: - Journal name and publisher - Impact factor and year - CiteScore and year - h-index and the source used - Eigenfactor if available - Whether the journal is indexed in Web of Science, Scopus, or both - Peer review type stated by the journal - Average time from submission to first decision if published - Acceptance rate if published - Open access policy and article processing charges - Whether the journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics Update this table each time you evaluate a journal. Metrics change annually, and a journal that looked strong two years ago may have changed its practices or its indexing status. ## Common Failure Patterns in Journal Metric Comparison ### Comparing Metrics From Different Databases The most common error is comparing a Web of Science impact factor for one journal to a Scopus CiteScore for another. These numbers are not directly comparable because the underlying article sets differ. Always use the same metric from the same source for every journal in your comparison. ### Using the Impact Factor for Fields With Slow Citation Patterns The two-year window of the impact factor penalizes fields where research builds slowly. If your field typically cites work older than two years, the impact factor will understate the influence of strong journals. Use a longer-window metric or a field-normalized metric instead. ### Ignoring Self-Citations Some journals have elevated metrics because of heavy self-citation. The impact factor and CiteScore do not fully exclude self-citations. If a journal's self-citation rate is unusually high, the metric may overstate the journal's external influence. Look for the self-citation rate in the database you are using. ### Choosing a Journal Based Only on Altmetrics Altmetrics measure online attention, not scholarly impact. A paper can receive high altmetrics because it was covered by a major news outlet, while receiving few citations. Altmetrics are useful for showing public engagement but should not replace citation-based metrics when you are choosing where to submit. ### Assuming a High Metric Means High Editorial Standards A journal with a high impact factor can still have weak peer review or unethical practices. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) describe the standards journals should meet for handling peer review, authorship disputes, data issues, and misconduct. Verify these practices directly instead of inferring them from a metric. ## Limitations of Journal Metrics ### Metrics Are Field-Dependent Citation rates vary by discipline, by subfield, and even by the type of article. Review articles are cited more often than original research. Method papers are cited more often than descriptive studies. No single metric adjusts for all of these factors. ### Metrics Change Over Time A journal's impact factor or CiteScore can rise or fall from year to year. A single year's value is a snapshot, not a trend. Look at several years of data if you want to understand whether a journal's performance is stable or volatile. ### Metrics Do Not Predict Individual Article Performance A high journal metric does not guarantee that your specific article will be highly cited. The distribution of citations within a journal is typically skewed. Your article's citation performance depends on its topic, quality, timing, and visibility, beyond on the journal's average. ### Metrics Can Be Gamed Journals can take actions that inflate their metrics, such as publishing large numbers of review articles or encouraging excessive self-citation. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) address manipulation of the scholarly record, and you should be alert to journals that appear to be inflating their numbers. ## How to Use Journal Finder Tools Responsibly Journal finder tools match your manuscript to journals based on title, abstract, and keywords. These tools are useful for generating candidate lists, but they have limitations. The tools rely on the data in their databases, which may be incomplete or outdated. A tool may suggest journals that are not indexed in the databases your institution recognizes. Use journal finder tools as a starting point, not as a final answer. Take the suggested list and run it through the comparison process described above. Verify each journal's metrics from the primary source, check its editorial practices, and confirm its indexing status. ## The Role of Reporting Guidelines in Journal Selection Reporting guidelines describe the minimum information that should appear in a published article for different study types. Journals that endorse reporting guidelines signal that they care about research transparency. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) maintains a comprehensive collection of reporting guidelines and can help you identify which guidelines apply to your study type. When you are comparing journals, check whether the journal endorses the relevant reporting guideline for your study design. A journal that requires adherence to reporting guidelines is likely to have a more rigorous review process. This is a qualitative check that complements the quantitative metrics. ## Research Identity and Its Role in Journal Selection Your researcher identity affects how journals and metrics are connected to you. An [ORCID record](https://info.orcid.org/researchers) provides a persistent identifier that links your publications to you, reducing the chance that your work is attributed to someone else with a similar name. When you submit to a journal, providing your ORCID helps the journal connect your article to your publication record. Maintaining an accurate ORCID record also helps you track your own citation metrics. If your publication list is incomplete or contains errors, any author-level metric such as the h-index will be inaccurate. Update your ORCID record whenever you publish, and check that your past publications are correctly attributed. ## Funding Requirements and Journal Selection If your research is funded by a government agency, your choice of journal may be constrained by funding policies. The [National Institutes of Health](https://grants.nih.gov/) requires that publications resulting from NIH-funded research be made available to the public. The [NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy) describes expectations for managing and sharing research data. Before you select a journal, confirm that the journal's policies allow you to meet your funder's requirements. Check whether the journal permits deposition of the accepted manuscript in a public repository, whether it offers open access options, and whether it has a data availability policy that aligns with your funder's expectations. A journal that cannot accommodate your funding requirements should be removed from your list even if its metrics are strong. ## Professional Escalation Criteria You should escalate your journal selection decision to a supervisor, mentor, or institutional research office when any of the following conditions apply: - You are uncertain whether a journal is legitimate or predatory - The journal's editorial practices are unclear or not documented - The journal requests fees that are not clearly explained - The journal's peer review process is not described - You are under pressure to publish quickly and are considering a journal you have not fully vetted - Your funder has specific requirements that you are unsure how to meet A mentor or research office can help you verify a journal's reputation and can alert you to known problematic journals in your field. ## Decision Framework for Matching Metrics to Submission Goals ### Define Your Submission Scenario Before Comparing Numbers The most common failure in journal selection is comparing metrics without first defining what decision the metric will inform. Different submission scenarios require different metric priorities. A first-time submission from a doctoral thesis has different needs than a high-stakes submission for a promotion case or a rapid communication of time-sensitive findings. Before you open any comparison tool, write down which of the following scenarios matches your current submission. **Scenario A: Career advancement submission.** If the publication will be evaluated by a promotion or tenure committee, the committee likely expects journals with established recognition in your field. Prioritize the impact factor or CiteScore because these are the metrics committees most often recognize. Record the metric value and the year so you can document your decision later. **Scenario B: Time-sensitive submission.** If your findings are urgent, such as a clinical observation or a policy-relevant result, prioritize journals with published turnaround times. Metrics matter less than the journal's stated speed from submission to first decision. Check whether the journal publishes its average decision times. If it does not, contact the editorial office directly before submitting. **Scenario C: Broad visibility submission.** If your goal is maximum readership beyond your immediate field, consider journals with strong altmetrics performance. This scenario applies when you want policy makers, clinicians, or the public to see your work. Use altmetrics to compare how often articles in each candidate journal receive news coverage or policy citations. **Scenario D: Field-specific reputation submission.** If you are publishing for a narrow specialist audience, the most relevant metric is the one your direct colleagues recognize. Ask three colleagues in your subfield which metric they check when evaluating a journal. Use that metric consistently across your candidate list. ### Build a Weighted Scoring Matrix for Your Candidate List A weighted scoring matrix converts your priorities into a repeatable comparison. Create a table with one row per candidate journal and one column per criterion. Assign each criterion a weight that reflects your scenario. For a career advancement submission, assign a weight of 40 percent to the impact factor, 25 percent to editorial practice verification, 20 percent to indexing status, and 15 percent to open access compatibility. For a time-sensitive submission, assign 40 percent to decision speed, 25 percent to editorial practice verification, 20 percent to indexing status, and 15 percent to the impact factor. Score each journal from 1 to 5 on each criterion. Multiply each score by the weight and sum the results. The journal with the highest total is your top candidate, but only after you verify that it passes the editorial practice checks described in the [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). The matrix does not replace judgment. It forces you to apply the same criteria to every journal instead of relying on whichever metric you saw first. ### Apply a Two-Stage Filter to Remove Unsuitable Journals Use a two-stage filter to avoid wasting time scoring journals that should never reach your shortlist. Stage one is a pass-fail check on non-negotiable criteria. Remove any journal that fails on editorial transparency, funder compliance, or basic indexing. If the journal does not describe its peer review process, remove it. If your funder requires public access and the journal does not permit repository deposition, remove it. If the journal is not indexed in the database your institution recognizes, remove it. Stage two is the weighted scoring matrix applied only to journals that passed stage one. This sequence prevents a journal with a high impact factor from surviving the process when it fails a non-negotiable check. The [National Institutes of Health](https://grants.nih.gov/) funding pages and the [NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy) describe the public access and data sharing requirements you must verify during stage one. ### Record the Decision Rationale for Each Journal For every journal you consider, record beyond the metric values but the reason you included or excluded it. Write one sentence for each journal stating the scenario you applied, the metric you prioritized, and the result of the editorial practice check. This record is useful when a mentor or committee asks why you chose a particular journal. It also helps you revisit the decision if the journal's metrics change before you submit. Keep the record in the same table you use for journal comparison. Add a column for decision rationale and update it each time you evaluate a journal. The [ORCID record](https://info.orcid.org/researchers) can help you track where your submissions go, but the decision rationale table is where you document why. ### Troubleshoot When Two Journals Have Nearly Identical Metrics When two journals have similar impact factors or CiteScores, the metric comparison cannot distinguish them. Move to qualitative checks. Compare the journals on editorial board composition, the types of articles they publish, and whether they endorse the relevant reporting guideline from the [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/). Check whether the journal publishes articles similar to yours in scope and method. A journal that regularly publishes work like yours is more likely to send your manuscript to appropriate reviewers. Compare the journals on their stated policies for handling disputes and corrections. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) describe the expected processes for handling complaints and misconduct. A journal that documents these processes clearly is a safer choice than one that does not, even when the metrics are equal. ### Escalate When the Decision Remains Unclear If you have applied the scenario definition, the weighted scoring matrix, and the two-stage filter and still cannot choose between journals, escalate the decision. Bring your comparison table and decision rationale to a mentor, a senior colleague, or your institutional research office. Describe the specific journals and the criteria where they are tied. Ask for guidance on the qualitative differences you may have missed. Escalation is appropriate when the choice will affect your career record or your ability to meet funder requirements, and it is better to ask before submitting than to discover a problem after acceptance. ### Review the Decision After Submission After you submit, note the outcome in your comparison table. Record whether the journal sent the manuscript to review, how long the first decision took, and whether the reviewers appeared to understand your work. This information improves your next journal selection. Metrics change annually, and your experience with a journal is a data point that no published metric captures. Update your table after every submission so your future decisions are based on both the published numbers and your direct experience. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the difference between the impact factor and CiteScore? The impact factor uses Web of Science data and a two-year citation window. CiteScore uses Scopus data and a four-year citation window. CiteScore also includes more document types and covers more journals. The two metrics are not directly comparable because they draw on different databases. ### Which journal metric should I use to compare journals in my field? Use the same metric from the same source for every journal you compare. If your field cites recent work heavily, the impact factor or CiteScore is reasonable. If your field cites slowly, use a longer-window metric or a field-normalized metric. The key is consistency across your candidate list. ### Can I trust a journal with a high impact factor? A high impact factor indicates that articles in the journal are cited frequently on average, but it does not confirm that the journal follows ethical editorial practices. Check the journal's policies against the [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) before submitting. ### How do I find journals that match my manuscript topic? Use journal finder tools to generate a candidate list, then verify each journal using the comparison process described in this article. Check metrics from the primary source, confirm indexing, and review editorial practices. The [National Library of Medicine bookshelf](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) can help you understand the publication landscape in your field. ### Do altmetrics matter for journal selection? Altmetrics measure online attention from news, social media, and policy documents. They are useful for showing public engagement but do not measure scholarly citation impact. Use altmetrics as a supplement to citation-based metrics, not as a replacement. ### How do I know if a journal follows ethical publication practices? Review the journal's stated policies on peer review, authorship, data availability, and conflict of interest. Compare those policies to the [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). Confirm that the journal has a process for handling complaints and misconduct. ### What should I do if my funder has public access requirements? Check the journal's open access policy and whether it permits deposition of the accepted manuscript in a public repository. The [NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy) describes expectations for NIH-funded research. Confirm that the journal's policies allow you to comply before you submit. ### How often should I update my journal comparison table? Update your table whenever you are actively selecting a journal. Metrics change annually, and journal policies can change at any time. Recheck the metrics and policies for any journal you have not evaluated in the past year. ## Using the Evidence | Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation | |---|---|---| | [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | ## Related Articles - [Genome Biology Impact Factor](/blog/careers/genome-biology-impact-factor) - [Genome Research Impact Factor](/blog/careers/genome-research-impact-factor) - [nature biotech impact factor](/blog/careers/nature-biotech-impact-factor) - [Statistical Symbols and Notation: A Quick Reference](/blog/guides/statistical-symbols-and-notation-a-quick-reference) - [nature cell biology impact factor](/blog/careers/nature-cell-biology-impact-factor) ## References and Further Reading - [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books). National Library of Medicine. - [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/). EQUATOR Network. - [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). Committee on Publication Ethics. - [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/). National Institutes of Health. - [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers). ORCID. - [Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy). National Institutes of Health. - [NCBI Literature Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Center for Biotechnology Information. - [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Library of Medicine. > This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.