A Guide to Academic Journal Rankings

Evaluating academic journals is important for researchers, scholars, and institutions aiming to publish work in reputable venues. This guide explores the most widely used metrics for assessing journal quality, including SJR (Scimago Journal Rank), SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper), Impact Factor, CiteScore, Citation Percentage, H-Index, Acceptance Rates, and submission volume. Learn more about each of these metrics and how to use them to choose appropriate journals for your research. 

​
​​

​Impact Factor / Impact Per Publication / CiteScore

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely recognised journal ranking metric that measures the average number of citations received by articles published in a journal over the previous two years. It is calculated by dividing the total number of citations of articles from the last two years by the total number of citable articles published during the same period.

For disciplines with slower publication cycles, the 5-Year Impact Factor provides a broader view by extending the calculation to the previous five years. This allows more time for articles to accumulate citations. Similar metrics include Elsevier’s CiteScore, which uses a four-year citation window, and Impact Per Publication (IPP), calculated over a three-year period.
​
All these rankings track the same underlying consideration: number of citations / citeable papers. What changes is the timeframe. 
​

​

​
​SJR - SCImago Journal Rank Indicator

The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) Indicator is a widely used citation-based metric for ranking academic journals. What sets SJR apart is its weighted citation system: citations from prestigious, highly ranked journals, carry more value than those from lower ranked ones. According to SCImago, the SJR measures a journal's impact, influence, and prestige, calculated as the average number of weighted citations received by a journal's articles over the previous three years.

You can find all SJR scores here and you can read more about the methodology here.

​
​

​SNIP ​- Source Normalized Impact per Paper 

​Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) developed the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) metric. It is a citation-based metric designed to improve inter-disciplinary journal comparisons. By accounting for variations in citation practices across academic fields the SNIP enables more accurate evaluations of journal impact. According to CWTS, the SNIP measures the average citation impact of a journal’s publications, correcting for differences in field-specific citation behaviour. This makes it a useful addition to traditional citation-based metrics like the Journal Impact Factor when making cross-field comparisons.
​
You can find all SNIP scores here and you can read more about the methodology here.

​


H Index and H-5 - Google Scholar Rankings

​Google Scholar ranks academic journals using the H-5 Index, which represents the largest number h such that h articles published in the last five years each have at least h citations. These metric highlights both the quantity and impact of a journal's recent publications. Similarly, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) tracks a journal's H Index across all years it has been indexed (2010–present). 

For example, in philosophy, Google Scholar’s top-ranked journal as of January 2024, Synthese, boasts an H-5 Index of 54, having published 2,778 papers in the past five years. In comparison, the second-ranked journal, Nous, has an H-5 of 39 with 245 papers, while The Philosophical Review—despite its reputation—falls outside the top 20 with an H-5 of 20, publishing only 40 papers in the same timeframe.

You can explore more of the Google Scholar rankings here.

​


Citation Percentage

​A journal’s Citation Percentage (CTE%) measures the proportion of papers published in a journal that receive at least one citation within three years of publication. Unlike metrics such as SJR, SNIP, or CiteScore, which focus on average citations per paper, CTE% provides insight into how many of a journal’s articles achieve any measurable impact.
​
This metric is particularly useful for understanding the distribution of a journals citations as it highlights if impact is concentrated in a select few articles or more evenly distributed. 

​


​Self-Citation Percentage 

While most journals maintain low levels of self-citation, excessively high self-citation rates can signal questionable practices. For instance, some journals include an overview article in each issue that cites all the papers within that issue. While this boosts raw citations (in particular the Citation Percentage) it can artificially inflate a journal’s impact and raise red flags.

Tracking self-citation rates offers a useful way to evaluate the credibility of citation-based metrics. Journals with unusually high self-citation levels may require closer scrutiny to ensure the reliability of their impact metrics.

​


Submission Statistics

Acceptance rates are a commonly used metric for assessing journal quality based on the idea that more selective journals maintain higher standards. While the validity of this reasoning is debated, acceptance rates remain a popular proxy for ranking journals and gauging their prestige. For a detailed exploration of this metric, see Rachel Herbert's paper, "Accept Me, Accept Me Not: What Do Journal Acceptance Rates Really Mean?" [ICSR Perspectives] published in the International Center for the Study of Research Paper Series.
​
Another related metric is the number of submissions a journal receives which serves as an indirect measure of its reputation. The rationale here is that a high submission volume indicates the journal is a desirable publication venue within its field. Although many factors influence submission numbers, this metric offers a broad indication of a journal’s popularity in the academic community.