Journal Metrics

This page provides information on the theoretical peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Portfolio journals. Data is collected annually for full years. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics.

Theoretical Peer Review Metrics for 2022

Submission to first editorial decision: the average time (in days) from receipt of the submission to sending the first editorial decision on whether the article will be sent for official review to the authors.

Submission to acceptance: the average time (in days) from the published date to the date of final editorial acceptance. Nature Portfolio Journals

Journal Metrics for 2022

On this page, you will find a set of citation-based metrics for Nature Portfolio journals produced by Clarivate Analytics. This includes brief definitions of each of the metrics used to measure the impact of our journals below the tables. Article metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track individual paper reach.

Definitions

Two-year impact factor: the journal impact factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current year for the JCR to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scientific items (including articles, reviews, and conference papers) published in the journal in the previous two years. (Under license from Clarivate Analytics)

Five-year impact factor: the average journal impact factor over five years, which has been available since 2007, is the number of times articles from the journal published in the last five years were cited in the JCR year. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the previous five years. (Under license from Clarivate Analytics)

Speed index: the speed index is the numerical average of the number of times the article was cited in the year it was published. The journal’s speed index indicates how quickly articles in the journal are cited. (Under license from Clarivate Analytics)

Eigenfactor® score: the calculation of the Eigenfactor score is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the last five years were cited in the JCR year, but it also considers the journals that contributed those citations so that journals with high citations influence more than those with lower citations. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so Eigenfactor scores are not affected by self-citation of the journal. (Under license from Clarivate Analytics)

Article influence score: the article influence score determines the average influence of a journal’s articles over the first five years after publication. It is calculated by multiplying the Eigenfactor score by 0.01 and dividing it by the number of articles in the journal, normalized as a part of all articles in all publications. This metric is almost similar to the five-year journal impact factor in that it is a ratio of the impact of citations for a journal to the volume of article contributions to the journal over five years. (Under license from Clarivate Analytics)

Editorials and Other Content

Nature and Nature journals vary in their provision of performance indicators. Nature. It is time for a renewal of the journal impact factor, July 2016 considers the journal impact factor to be a number that is widely used yet still faces criticism. Like any metric, it should not be used without critique and without understanding what it measures. Nature Methods. On impact, August 2015. Use these ten assets to guide research assessment, urged Diana Hicks and Paul Wouters and their colleagues. Nature. Citation metrics: announcing the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, April 22, 2015. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), an initiative led by the American Society for Cell Biology, aims to reform research assessment. Nature Cell Biology. Ending the impact factor tyranny, January 2014. When making decisions on how to assess research impact, evaluators should consider the impact of focusing on certain measures – and be open about their methods. Nature. The maze of impact metrics, October 17, 2013. With the first journal impact factor released, it is time to think about journal metrics and how to make Nature Climate Change stand out. Nature Climate Change. Having impact, July 2013. Citation analyses can reduce scientific output to numbers, but they do not live up to theoretical peer review in evaluating scientists. Online usage statistics and comments may soon enable a more accurate assessment of scientific impact. Nature Materials. Measuring impact, July 2011. The traditional impact factor is outdated. Is there an alternative for assessing researcher output and journal quality? Nature Immunology. Ball and chain, October 2010. Topographical measurements of nature, June 2010. The value of scientific output is often measured, to rank one country against another, to distribute funds among universities, or even to grant or deny qualifications. Standard sciences have created many “metrics” to assist in these rankings. Do they work? Are they fair? Are they overused? Nature. Transparency, education, and communication are key elements to ensure the appropriate use of metrics to measure individual scientific achievement. Nature. Evaluating evaluation, June 17, 2010. Research assessment relies heavily on the exaggerated status of the impact factor. Nature. Not deep impact, June 23, 2005.

Source:
https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics