Compare citation metrics, indexing status, quartile rankings, and publishing speeds of academic journals side by side.
Below is a representative side-by-side analysis illustrating how citation distributions, quartile assignments, and indexing metrics compare across leading multidisciplinary publications:
| Metric / Feature | Nature | Science | PLOS ONE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher | Springer Nature | AAAS | Public Library of Science |
| Impact Factor (Current) | 50.5 | 44.7 | 2.9 |
| Impact Factor (5-Year) | 54.2 | 47.9 | 3.4 |
| CiteScore | 68.2 | 60.4 | 5.8 |
| SJR | 14.821 | 12.615 | 0.792 |
| SNIP | 9.452 | 8.821 | 1.120 |
| Quartile | Q1 | Q1 | Q1 / Q2 |
| Subject Area(s) | Multidisciplinary Sciences | Multidisciplinary Sciences | Multidisciplinary Sciences |
| Open Access Status | Hybrid Open Access | Hybrid Open Access | Gold Open Access |
| Acceptance Rate | ~8% | ~7% | ~48% |
| Avg. Review Time | 8–12 weeks | 6–10 weeks | 6–9 weeks |
Evaluating potential publication venues requires balancing citation metrics against editorial scope, review turnaround speed, and compliance with institutional or funder mandates. While the Journal Impact Factor remains the primary metric referenced by tenure and grant committees, relying on a single indicator can distort editorial decisions.
The standard 2-year Journal Impact Factor tracks short-term citation velocity, which favors rapidly moving experimental fields such as molecular biology, genomics, and artificial intelligence. For fields with extended citation half-lives (including pure mathematics, geology, economics, and social sciences), compare the 5-Year Impact Factor to assess whether the journal sustains long-term scholarly influence.
Always verify which database indexes your target audience. Clarivate’s JIF evaluates citations from the Web of Science Core Collection across a 2-year window, whereas Elsevier’s CiteScore calculates a 4-year citation window from the larger Scopus database. Understanding how these metrics contrast prevents submission mismatches. Read our full analysis in Impact Factor vs. CiteScore.
Directly comparing raw metrics between disciplines is mathematically invalid. An impact factor of 3.0 represents a world-leading title in pure mathematics, but places a journal in the lower percentiles of clinical oncology. To evaluate cross-disciplinary quality fairly:
Beyond bibliometrics, early-career researchers and doctoral candidates should evaluate practical publishing realities: average peer review duration, publication lag time, acceptance rate, and Gold vs. Hybrid Open Access article processing charges (APCs). For a step-by-step submission workflow, review our Where to Publish Decision Guide.
Can I compare journals across different research fields?
Raw citation numbers cannot be compared across different fields due to differences in reference lengths and citation frequencies. To compare journals from disparate fields, use normalized metrics such as SNIP or subject-specific Quartiles (Q1–Q4).
Where does the comparison metric data come from?
All figures are compiled from official annual bibliometric updates: Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (Web of Science), Elsevier Scopus CiteScore, and the CWTS Leiden bibliometric indicators. Consult our Data Sources & Methodology for collection standards.
How can I verify if an Impact Factor is legitimate?
Always verify that the journal is officially cataloged in the Web of Science Master Journal List or Scopus Source List. Genuine Impact Factors are issued exclusively by Clarivate; third-party metrics such as "Global Impact Factor" or "Universal Impact Factor" are deceptive indicators common among predatory publishers.