AFM SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell Authors
AFM looks exactly like a top functional-materials journal should look in Scopus. The useful question is not whether it is strong, but whether your paper belongs in that tier.
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: Advanced Functional Materials sits in the elite functional-materials tier under Scopus-style metrics. Recent metric aggregators report an SJR of 5.439, a Scopus impact score of 19.96, and stable Q1 standing. That confirms real authority, but the submission decision still depends on whether the manuscript is function-driven enough for AFM rather than just technically competent.
The core metric picture
Metric | Current read | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
SJR | 5.439 | Prestige-weighted influence is very strong |
Scopus impact score | 19.96 | Citation performance remains high over a four-year window |
Quartile | Q1 | The journal is still top-tier in Scopus classification |
Global rank | 257 in a broad journal set | AFM sits well above the applied middle tier |
JCR context | Impact factor 19.0 | Web of Science tells the same story |
The practical conclusion is that AFM is not a soft fallback. It is a real high-end target for functional materials papers.
What the metrics actually help with
They help explain where AFM sits in the materials hierarchy:
- below the broadest flagships like Advanced Materials
- above more application-heavy venues like ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
- strongest when the manuscript is about function, not just synthesis
That is useful when your paper sits between a flagship aspiration and a more applied destination.
What the metrics do not answer
They do not tell you:
- whether the function story is actually important enough
- whether the benchmark is convincing enough
- whether the mechanism is still too thin
- whether the audience is broad enough inside functional materials
Those are still the reasons the paper gets screened out.
Why the profile matters for authors
AFM does best when the material clearly does something important and the manuscript proves it. The metric profile fits that editorial identity:
- function-first stories
- strong structure-property-performance logic
- real validation, not only plausibility
- consequence beyond one narrow optimization problem
That is why the number is useful. It tells you AFM has enough authority that it does not need to compromise on incomplete work.
What should drive the submission decision instead
The better question is whether the manuscript truly belongs in AFM's version of the field.
That is why the better next reads are:
- Is Advanced Functional Materials a good journal?
- Advanced Functional Materials submission guide
- Advanced Functional Materials submission process
- Advanced Functional Materials acceptance rate
If the work is mostly local, under-benchmarked, or weak on function, the metrics do not rescue the mismatch. They only explain why the journal can say no while still publishing at volume.
Practical verdict
AFM has a genuinely elite Scopus profile for functional materials. That is a reason to take the target seriously, not a reason to overreach.
If the paper has convincing function, strong validation, and relevance beyond one technical pocket, AFM is an honest ambitious target. If it is still mostly incremental or only superficially application-linked, the metric is telling you the journal is probably a tier too high. A free Manusights scan is the fastest way to test that before submission.
- Is Advanced Functional Materials a good journal?, Manusights.
Sources
- 1. Advanced Functional Materials profile, Resurchify.
- 2. Advanced Functional Materials author guidelines, Wiley.
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.