Advanced Materials SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell Authors
Advanced Materials looks elite in every metric system. The harder question is whether your paper is broad enough to deserve that level of materials-science authority.
Research Scientist, Materials Science & Nanotechnology
Author context
Specializes in materials science and nanotechnology publications, with experience navigating Elsevier, Wiley, and RSC journal workflows.
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 Materials has one of the strongest Scopus profiles in materials science. Recent Scopus-derived journal trackers report an SJR of 8.851, a Scopus impact score of 27.78, and firm Q1 standing. That confirms real flagship status, but it still does not answer the harder submission question: is your paper broad enough for this room?
The core metric picture
Metric | Current read | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
SJR | 8.851 | Prestige-weighted influence is extremely high |
Scopus impact score | 27.78 | Citation density is unusually strong over time |
Quartile | Q1 | The journal remains top-tier in Scopus-based classification |
Global rank | 104 in a broad journal set | The journal sits near the top of the materials hierarchy |
JCR context | Impact factor 26.8 | Web of Science tells the same high-level story |
The useful reading is simple: Advanced Materials still behaves like a flagship materials journal, not just a famous brand with legacy momentum.
What the metrics actually help with
They help confirm where the journal sits in the field:
- above strong family journals like Advanced Functional Materials
- much harder than broad applied venues like ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
- still one of the main prestige-weighted destinations for broad materials work
That is useful when your manuscript sits between a specialist materials journal and a true flagship target.
What the metrics do not answer
They do not tell you:
- whether the manuscript has broad enough consequence
- whether the advance is conceptual or only benchmark-driven
- whether the work is too application-specific for the journal
- whether the story really travels across materials subfields
Those are still the decisions that control desk rejection.
Why the profile matters for authors
At this level of SJR, the journal can afford to be ruthless about fit. Strong data alone is not enough. The paper usually needs some combination of:
- broad materials relevance
- unusually convincing performance
- mechanistic or design depth
- a clear reason people outside one narrow device niche should care
That is why these numbers are useful. They are not there to flatter the journal. They are there to show you how expensive a bad target choice can be.
What should drive the submission decision instead
The better question is whether the paper is truly an Advanced Materials paper.
That is why the better next reads are:
- Is Advanced Materials a good journal?
- Advanced Materials submission guide
- Advanced Materials submission process
- Advanced Materials acceptance rate
If the paper is strong but still local in audience or consequence, the metrics do not rescue the mismatch. They only explain why the journal can say no very quickly.
Practical verdict
Advanced Materials has an elite Scopus profile. That confirms genuine field authority.
But the author takeaway should still be about fit, not admiration. If the manuscript has broad materials consequence, serious validation, and a story that reaches beyond one subcommunity, the upside is real. If it is narrower than that, the metric is mostly a warning that the journal's editorial bar is probably higher than your manuscript is ready for. A free Manusights scan is the fastest way to test that honestly before submission.
- Is Advanced Materials a good journal?, Manusights.
Sources
- 1. Advanced Materials profile, Resurchify.
- 2. Advanced 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.