Annual Review of Food Science and Technology Impact Factor
Science impact factor is 45.8. See the current rank, quartile, and what the number actually means before you submit.
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 picture on Science?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether Science is realistic.
A fuller snapshot for authors
Use Science's impact factor as one signal, then stack it against selectivity, editorial speed, and the journal guide before you decide where to submit.
What this metric helps you decide
- Whether Science has the citation profile you want for this paper.
- How the journal compares to nearby options when prestige or visibility matters.
- Whether the citation upside is worth the likely selectivity and process tradeoffs.
What you still need besides JIF
- Scope fit and article-type fit, which matter more than a high number.
- Desk-rejection risk, which impact factor does not predict.
- Timeline and cost context.
How authors actually use Science's impact factor
Use the number to place the journal in the right tier, then check the harder filters: scope fit, selectivity, and editorial speed.
Use this page to answer
- Is Science actually above your next-best alternatives, or just more famous?
- Does the prestige upside justify the likely cost, delay, and selectivity?
- Should this journal stay on the shortlist before you invest in submission prep?
Check next
- Acceptance rate: <7%. High JIF does not tell you how hard triage will be.
- First decision: ~14 days to first decision. Timeline matters if you are under a grant, job, or revision clock.
- Publishing cost and article type, since those constraints can override prestige.
Quick answer: Annual Review of Food Science and Technology currently lists an official impact factor of 12.4 on the Annual Reviews journal page. Because impact factor is a Journal Citation Reports (JCR) metric, the practical reading is that this is a flagship review venue in food science, not just a high-citation review journal. The bigger signal is its combination of selective review commissioning, durable citation strength, and a format built to synthesize a whole area rather than simply summarize recent papers.
Annual Review of Food Science and Technology impact metrics at a glance
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Official Impact Factor | 12.4 |
Scopus impact score 2024 | 12.73 |
SJR 2024 | 2.503 |
h-index | 104 |
Best quartile | Q1 |
Overall rank | 955 |
Publisher | Annual Reviews |
ISSN | 1941-1413 / 1941-1421 |
Publication type | Review journal |
That mix of metrics is strong enough to treat the journal as a real authority venue, especially for broad food-science synthesis.
What 12.4 actually tells you
The first signal is authority. The journal is operating at a level where published reviews are expected to orient the field, not merely summarize it.
The second signal is durability. Review venues that sustain a number like this usually do so because their better papers remain useful to researchers for years, especially when the topic spans multiple subareas of food science and technology.
The third signal is selectivity by planning. Annual Reviews journals are not built on routine unsolicited volume. They are built on a narrow stream of reviews chosen because they are expected to matter.
That is why the metric should not be interpreted as a generic prestige marker. It is a signal about editorial role.
In other words, the JCR number tells you the journal sits in the top review tier, but it does not lower the bar on topic breadth. It raises the cost of being too narrow.
Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 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 | 8.00 |
2015 | 8.55 |
2016 | 8.88 |
2017 | 10.77 |
2018 | 9.36 |
2019 | 10.72 |
2020 | 13.46 |
2021 | 14.52 |
2022 | 12.88 |
2023 | 12.06 |
2024 | 12.73 |
Directionally, the open Scopus-based trend is up from 12.06 in 2023 to 12.73 in 2024. The more useful point is not the year-to-year change alone. It is that the journal has held a high level for a long stretch, which is exactly what you would expect from a review venue that publishes selective, reusable synthesis.
Why the number can mislead authors
The common mistake is to see a strong impact factor and assume the journal is basically a place for any well-written food-science review.
That is usually wrong.
This journal still expects:
- a topic with broad food-science significance
- a strong reason the review is needed now
- a structure that synthesizes, not just catalogs
- an author team that can credibly guide the field
A good review can still be wrong for this venue if it is too narrow, too descriptive, or too obviously better suited to a more specialized journal.
How ARFST compares with nearby choices
Journal | Best fit | When it beats ARFST | When ARFST is stronger |
|---|---|---|---|
Annual Review of Food Science and Technology | Broad, field-shaping food-science synthesis | When the topic deserves a canonical review treatment | When the manuscript has true cross-subfield relevance |
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety | Broad food-science reviews with a different editorial culture | When the review is strong but not necessarily an Annual Review-scale field statement | When the review should function as a more definitive synthesis |
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition | Review-heavy food and nutrition lane | When the topic is narrower or more applied than field-defining | When the review should speak across the food-science field |
Narrow specialty review venue | Targeted synthesis for one subfield | When the audience is clearly bounded | When the review genuinely belongs in a broad food-science conversation |
That comparison matters because many publishable review ideas do not need an Annual Reviews treatment even when they are very good.
What pre-submission reviews reveal about ARFST-targeted proposals
In our pre-submission review work with ARFST-style proposals, four patterns recur.
The review is too narrow. A topic can be important within emulsions, processing, packaging, or sensory science and still be too small for this venue.
The manuscript summarizes but does not synthesize. Field-shaping review journals reward judgment, not just completeness.
The timing case is weak. A topic that was recently reviewed well may not justify a new Annual Review treatment.
The authority case is vague. Author credibility matters more in a venue like this than in a routine review lane.
If that sounds familiar, an ARFST review readiness check is usually more useful than another polishing pass.
The information gain that matters here
The official Annual Reviews page frames the journal around current and significant developments in the multidisciplinary field of food science and technology.
That matters because it explains why narrow topic reviews struggle. The venue is built for synthesis that helps many adjacent food-science readers understand where the field is going next.
That multidisciplinary framing is the main editorial clue authors should use before pitching. If the review only serves one technical pocket of food science, the headline metric will overstate the real fit.
How to use this number in journal selection
Use the impact factor to place the journal correctly. This is a flagship review venue in food science.
Then ask the harder question: does the review topic justify a broad synthesis that many areas of food science would care about?
That usually means checking whether the proposed review:
- organizes a mature literature clearly
- matters beyond one narrow subfield
- identifies future research priorities credibly
- benefits from a high-authority review treatment
If the answer is yes, the metrics support the target. If the answer is no, the number is flattering the fit.
What the number does not tell you
The impact factor does not tell you whether the topic is broad enough, whether the review is timely enough, or whether the better home is a more specialized review venue.
Those are the real editorial screens here.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit if:
- the topic has broad importance across food science and technology
- the review offers real synthesis and future-direction value
- the author team has a credible authority case
- the field genuinely needs a fresh review now
Think twice if:
- the review is mainly subfield-specific
- the manuscript reads like a long literature summary
- the topic has been reviewed recently in a similar way
- a narrower food-science review venue better matches the audience
Bottom line
Annual Review of Food Science and Technology has an official impact factor of 12.4 and strong secondary metrics. The stronger signal is its role as a selective, field-shaping review 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 12.4 for Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. Secondary citation databases also place it in Q1 with strong long-run influence in food science.
Yes. It is one of the stronger review venues in food science. The more useful signal is the combination of invitation-led review selection, durable citation performance, and a format designed for field-level synthesis rather than routine review articles.
No. This is not a catch-all review venue. The topic still needs broad field relevance, a credible authority case, and a clear reason a new synthesis is needed now.
The common misses are narrow review topics, summary-heavy manuscripts without strong synthesis, and proposals that do not justify why the subject deserves an Annual Review treatment at this moment.
Use it to place the journal correctly as a flagship food-science review venue, then ask whether the topic is broad and mature enough to support a field-shaping synthesis rather than a narrower specialist review.
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 picture on Science?
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 picture on Science?
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.