Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Impact Factor
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences impact factor is 13.0. See the trend, secondary metrics, and what that means before pitching a review.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Journal evaluation
Want the full journal picture?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether the journal is realistic.
Quick answer: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences currently lists an official impact factor of 13.0 on the Annual Reviews journal page. Because impact factor is a Journal Citation Reports (JCR) metric, the right reading is that this is a flagship review venue in the geosciences, not a routine review outlet. The bigger signal is not just the number. It is the combination of invitation-led review selection, high long-term authority, and a format built for field-level synthesis rather than incremental literature coverage.
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences impact metrics at a glance
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Official Impact Factor | 13.0 |
Scopus impact score 2024 | 12.94 |
SJR 2024 | 5.885 |
h-index | 187 |
Best quartile | Q1 |
Overall rank | 214 |
Publisher | Annual Reviews |
ISSN | 0084-6597 |
Publication type | Review journal / book-series style review venue |
That profile is strong enough that the metric should be read as an indicator of editorial selectivity, not just citation volume.
What 13.0 actually tells you
The first signal is authority. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences is not just well cited. It is a venue that helps define what the field regards as settled, contested, and worth pursuing next.
The second signal is format power. Review venues with strong citation performance benefit from field-wide reuse, but they only keep that power when the reviews are genuinely organizing the literature rather than summarizing it.
The third signal is selectivity by design. This journal is invitation-led or at least very selective in topic choice, which means the citation profile is not being generated by high article volume. It is being generated by a narrow set of reviews that become reference points.
That is why the impact factor should not be read as "high-prestige geology journal." It should be read as "field-shaping synthesis venue."
Another useful way to frame it is this: the publisher page is surfacing a JCR-style prestige signal, but the editorial bar comes from topic breadth and synthesis value, not from citation arithmetic alone.
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences impact factor trend
The Annual Reviews page is the authoritative source for the current impact factor on this page. For the longer directional view, the table below uses the open Scopus-based impact-score series as a trend proxy.
Year | Scopus impact score |
|---|---|
2014 | 9.67 |
2015 | 9.04 |
2016 | 7.80 |
2017 | 9.05 |
2018 | 9.51 |
2019 | 10.78 |
2020 | 11.28 |
2021 | 11.97 |
2022 | 15.14 |
2023 | 12.64 |
2024 | 12.94 |
Directionally, the open Scopus-based trend is up from 12.64 in 2023 to 12.94 in 2024, though still below the 2022 spike. The healthier interpretation is stability at a very high level rather than volatility. This is what you would expect from a review venue whose output is low in volume and high in reuse.
Why the number can mislead authors
The common mistake is to see a double-digit impact factor and assume the main challenge is writing a polished review.
That is not the main challenge here. The real challenge is that the journal wants:
- a topic with field-level scope
- a review that synthesizes rather than catalogs
- an author team with clear authority
- a reason the topic deserves an Annual Review treatment now
A good review article can still be wrong for this venue if it is too narrow, too descriptive, or too recent in the literature cycle to justify a definitive synthesis.
How AREPS compares with nearby choices
Journal | Best fit | When it beats AREPS | When AREPS is stronger |
|---|---|---|---|
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences | Field-shaping synthesis across a major earth or planetary science topic | When the topic truly deserves a definitive review treatment | When the manuscript has broad authority and long-term reference value |
Earth-Science Reviews | Broad earth-science reviews with less invitation-driven identity | When the topic is strong but does not need an Annual Review masthead | When the review should function as a canonical field synthesis |
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment | Very high-visibility earth-systems review lane | When the topic is more journalistic, policy-adjacent, or explicitly cross-disciplinary in that editorial style | When the review needs a classic authoritative synthesis format |
Narrow specialty review venue | High-quality review for a bounded subfield | When the audience is clearly smaller than the full field | When the review genuinely belongs in a broad geoscience conversation |
That comparison matters because many solid review ideas are too narrow for AREPS even when they are very publishable elsewhere.
What pre-submission reviews reveal about AREPS-targeted proposals
In our pre-submission review work with AREPS-style review proposals, four patterns recur.
The topic is important but not broad enough. A strong review inside one subcommunity can still be too small for a venue that wants field-level consequence.
The manuscript summarizes more than it synthesizes. Review venues at this level reward structure, judgment, and comparative framing, not just coverage.
The timing case is weak. A topic can be interesting and still not need a new definitive review right now.
The authority case is underdeveloped. At this level, the author team is part of the fit decision.
If that sounds familiar, an AREPS proposal or review readiness check is usually more useful than more line editing.
The information gain that matters here
The official Annual Reviews page adds the signal most authors need to hear: the journal covers significant developments across all areas of earth and planetary sciences, from climate and environmental questions to hazards, planet formation, and the evolution of life.
That matters because it explains why narrow technical reviews struggle. The venue is built for synthesis that helps many adjacent readers reorient, not just one subfield update.
How to use this number in journal selection
Use the impact factor to place the journal correctly. This is a flagship review venue with strong long-term authority.
Then ask the harder question: does the review topic genuinely deserve a broad, authoritative synthesis now?
That usually means checking whether the proposed review:
- organizes a large and mature literature
- matters to more than one narrow subcommunity
- can define future research priorities clearly
- benefits from a canonical review treatment rather than a routine survey
If the answer is yes, the metric supports the target. If the answer is no, the number will flatter the fit.
What the number does not tell you
The impact factor does not tell you whether the review is broad enough, timely enough, or authoritative enough for this venue. It also does not tell you whether a different review journal would be a more honest match.
Those are the real editorial screens here.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit if:
- the topic has field-level importance across earth and planetary science
- the review offers real synthesis, not just summary
- the author team has a clear authority case
- the topic needs a strong review now rather than later
Think twice if:
- the review is mainly subfield-specific
- the literature is not yet mature enough for a definitive synthesis
- the article reads like an extended bibliography
- a narrower review venue better matches the real audience
Bottom line
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences has an official impact factor of 13.0 and very strong secondary metrics. The stronger signal is the journal's role as a selective, field-shaping synthesis venue.
If the review is not broad and authoritative enough, the metric will make the fit look better than it is.
Frequently asked questions
The official Annual Reviews journal page currently lists an impact factor of 13.0 for Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Secondary citation databases also place it in Q1 with very strong cross-field influence.
Yes. It is one of the strongest review venues in earth and planetary science. The more useful signal is not just the impact factor but the combination of review-only selectivity, very high SJR, and long-term authority in the field.
No. This is an invitation-led or highly selective review venue. The review still needs field-level scope, author authority, and a clear reason the topic deserves synthesis now.
The common misses are narrow reviews, summary-heavy manuscripts without strong synthesis, and proposals that do not justify why the topic needs an Annual Review treatment now.
Use it to place the journal correctly as a flagship review venue, then ask whether your topic is broad and mature enough to deserve a field-shaping synthesis rather than a narrower review elsewhere.
Sources
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: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how journals compare, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Checklist system / operational asset
Elite Submission Checklist
A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.
Flagship report / decision support
Desk Rejection Report
A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.
Dataset / reference hub
Journal Intelligence Dataset
A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.
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.
Before you upload
Want the full journal picture?
Scope, selectivity, what editors want, common rejection reasons, and submission context, all in one place.
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Want the full journal picture?
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.