ACS AMI SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell Authors
ACS AMI looks solid rather than glamorous in Scopus, and that is exactly the useful reading. The journal is strong, broad, and built for serious applied materials work.
Research Scientist, Neuroscience & Cell Biology
Author context
Works across neuroscience and cell biology, with direct expertise in preparing manuscripts for PNAS, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, eLife, and Nature Communications.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Quick answer: ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces has a solid top-tier Scopus profile for a broad applied materials journal. Recent metric aggregators report an SJR of 1.921, a Scopus impact score of 8.26, and stable Q1 standing. That confirms real authority, but it does not make the journal a substitute for a true flagship when the paper is clearly aiming higher.
The core metric picture
Metric | Current read | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
SJR | 1.921 | Prestige-weighted influence is strong for a high-volume applied journal |
Scopus impact score | 8.26 | Citation performance is durable, not just brand-driven |
Quartile | Q1 | The journal remains in the top Scopus tier |
Global rank | 1560 in a broad journal set | Strong standing, but not flagship-level scarcity |
JCR context | Impact factor 8.2 | Web of Science aligns with the same general read |
The practical point is that ACS AMI is strong, credible, and widely used, but it is not the same editorial bet as ACS Nano or Advanced Materials.
What the metrics actually help with
They help clarify where ACS AMI sits:
- stronger than lower-tier applied workhorse journals
- more accessible than the highest prestige materials titles
- best when the paper combines material novelty with real interface or application logic
That is useful when your manuscript sits between ambitious applied work and a broader flagship push.
What the metrics do not answer
They do not tell you:
- whether the interface or use-case story is actually real
- whether the application evidence is strong enough
- whether the novelty is too thin for a Q1 destination
- whether the paper would be better framed for a more specialized journal
Those are still the decisions that determine fit.
Why the profile matters for authors
ACS AMI earns its standing by publishing a lot of applied materials work that other researchers genuinely reuse. That means the page should be read as a fit signal:
- application and interface logic matter
- functional validation matters
- pure synthesis without a real use-case story often underperforms here
- scale is part of the journal's value, not evidence that standards disappeared
So the metric profile is useful precisely because it shows the journal's breadth has not collapsed into noise.
What should drive the submission decision instead
The better question is whether the paper is genuinely an ACS AMI paper.
That is why the better next reads are:
- Is ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces a good journal?
- ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces submission guide
- ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces submission process
- ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces acceptance rate
If the paper is really a flagship materials story, the metrics are telling you ACS AMI may be too low. If the paper is too local or weak on validation, the metrics are telling you even this broad journal will still be demanding.
Practical verdict
ACS AMI has a healthy Scopus profile and real applied-materials authority. That makes it a strong target when the manuscript is experimentally convincing, application-linked, and honest about its scope.
But the useful takeaway is still strategic fit, not brand comfort. If the paper's value comes from a real interface or use-case story, ACS AMI can be exactly right. If the paper needs flagship prestige to sound bigger than it is, the metrics are already warning you. A free Manusights scan is the fastest way to pressure-test that before submission.
- Is ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces a good journal?, Manusights.
Sources
- 1. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces profile, Resurchify.
- 2. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces journal page, ACS Publications.
Reference library
Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide
This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.