Advanced Materials Impact Factor

The current 29.1 is up from 26.8 in the prior JCR data year, while still below the 2020-2021 peak. Advanced Materials has not dropped disproportionately compared to its peers; in fact, it has held position better than some. The journal remains firmly in the top 10 of its category across all five years.

For authors, the relevant takeaway is that 29.1 is the right number to use for current planning. Comparing your target journal against a 32.1 figure from 2021 would overstate where the field sits today.

Advanced Materials publishes over 3,200 citable items per year. Despite that high volume, it sustains a JIF of 29.1, which means the average paper in the journal is getting cited heavily. The total-cites figure of 459,817 is one of the highest in all of materials science. That depth of citation activity means papers in Advanced Materials are broadly discoverable and heavily used as reference points.

For submission planning, the practical implication is: a paper published in Advanced Materials will reach a very large audience. Whether it gets cited depends on the specific contribution, but the journal provides the broadest possible materials-science platform.

For manuscripts targeting Advanced Materials, three failure patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes. Advanced Materials has a documented desk rejection rate of approximately 70%.

Materials synthesis without a conceptual advance.

The Wiley Advanced Portfolio reviewer guidelines assess novelty on a five-level scale, and desk review passes only work rated "outstanding (top 5%)" or "high (top 15%)." The description for outstanding work is: "results are highly innovative and conceptually new." What this means in practice: a paper demonstrating a ~10% property improvement in a known materials class (better solar cell efficiency, higher capacitance, improved tensile strength) without a structure-function mechanism explaining why the improvement occurs is rejected at desk.

"We made a better solar cell" is a desk rejection. "We identified a grain boundary passivation mechanism that generalizes to other perovskite compositions" is an Advanced Materials paper.

The distinction is not between good and bad results, it is between a result and a design principle.

Narrow subfield work without cross-domain significance. The reviewer guidelines ask explicitly: "A paper can be considered important for a broad and heterogeneous readership and thus suitable for a broad-scope journal, or it may be important to a particular subject area and thus more suitable for journals targeting a more specific audience."

Advanced Materials editors actively redirect papers to Advanced Functional Materials or Small when the advance is specific to one electrochemical system, one material family, or one device application without a transferable principle.

Papers where the significance argument terminates within a subfield are declined at desk with a redirect suggestion, not because the science is weak, but because the audience is too narrow for a field-wide flagship.

Computational-only work without experimental validation. The author guidelines state verbatim: "If computational results are part of the work, they must be complementary to the experimental results and should offer significant insight into the topic under investigation." DFT screening studies predicting enhanced electronic or mechanical properties of a novel material family without experimental synthesis or measurement to anchor the predictions do not satisfy this requirement.

The guidelines further specify: "Results obtained from methods that are neither described in the manuscript nor in previous published reports are not acceptable for publication." This is non-negotiable; it is not a preference that reviewers can waive.

A Advanced Materials submission readiness check can assess whether the manuscript presents a genuine conceptual advance, whether the significance argument reaches across materials science rather than a single subfield, and whether the computational components are grounded in experimental evidence.

Editors are usually screening for whether the work will matter across materials science, not just inside one device or chemistry niche. That means:

• a materials advance with conceptual or practical consequence beyond one application

• the paper needs to read as field-relevant, not as a narrow optimization report

• benchmarking and characterization need to be thorough and convincing

• the narrative should make the advance accessible to a broad materials audience

Strong incremental optimization often belongs in a more focused venue, even when the experiments are technically excellent.

The most useful thing about Advanced Materials at 29.1 is not the prestige signal by itself. It is the pattern behind the number. The journal is still operating in the same flagship zone after the 2021-2022 citation spike cooled, which means authors should read the current metric as durable rather than inflated. In practice, that tells you the journal is still reserved for manuscripts that feel like field-shaping materials science, not just highly optimized materials engineering.

That distinction matters because authors often misuse a high impact-factor page as a reason to aim higher without checking editorial fit. Advanced Materials is not a generic top-tier materials venue. Editors want a paper whose implication survives outside one chemistry, one device architecture, or one application niche. If the strongest sentence in the cover letter is really about performance optimization inside an already crowded lane, the metric is telling you about audience size, not about likely acceptance.

The trend also helps you avoid a common planning mistake. Advanced Materials is up from 26.8 in the prior JCR data year but still down from the 32.1 peak in 2020-2021. The change has not moved it out of the flagship tier. Authors still cite the early-2020s peak as if that were the standing prestige line.

It is more honest to use the current 29.1 and ask a narrower question: would the paper still feel ambitious enough for Advanced Materials if you removed the journal name from the decision? If the answer is no, the metric is not the problem. The fit call is.

Scopus-derived metrics confirm what the JCR numbers already suggest. Advanced Materials' CiteScore is 42.0, reflecting unusually strong citation density over a broader citation window. The SJR of 8.851 places it among the most prestige-weighted materials journals in Scopus, ranked 104th globally across all journal fields. The journal holds Q1 standing across multiple Scopus categories.

For authors, the Scopus data doesn't change the decision logic. It reinforces it. Advanced Materials looks elite in every metric system because the field genuinely treats it as a flagship. The CiteScore running above the two-year JIF reflects the broader Scopus citation window. If the manuscript has broad materials consequence, the metrics support the target. If it doesn't, no metric system will compensate.

For a fuller breakdown, see our Advanced Materials SJR and Scopus metrics page.