Blood SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell Authors
Blood's Scopus profile confirms flagship hematology status. The useful question is whether your paper is broad enough for that readership.
Associate Professor, Clinical Medicine & Public Health
Author context
Specializes in clinical and epidemiological research publishing, with direct experience preparing manuscripts for NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, and The Lancet.
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: Blood remains a flagship hematology journal under Scopus-style metrics. Current Scopus-linked sources report an SJR of 4.927, a CiteScore of 21.9, and Q1 standing in hematology. That confirms real authority, but the submission decision still depends on whether the paper matters broadly enough for a field-wide hematology audience.
The core metric picture
Metric | Current value | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
SJR | 4.927 | Prestige-weighted influence remains very strong |
CiteScore | 21.9 | Four-year citation performance is durable |
SNIP | 2.983 | Field-normalized impact is also strong |
Quartile | Q1 | The journal remains firmly top-tier |
JCR context | Impact factor 23.1 | Web of Science tells the same flagship hematology story |
Journal identity | ASH flagship | The journal still carries broad authority across hematology |
The useful reading is that Blood is not only famous inside hematology. It still performs like a field-defining specialty journal under both Scopus and JCR systems.
What the metrics actually help with
They help explain what kind of journal Blood is:
- broader than many disease-specific hematology titles
- strong across basic, translational, and clinical hematology
- credible enough that publication there carries signal outside a narrow subspecialty
That is useful when the shortlist includes Blood, Leukemia, Haematologica, or an oncology-led journal.
What the metrics do not answer
They do not tell you:
- whether the manuscript is broad enough for Blood
- whether the hematology consequence is really field-wide
- whether the paper belongs in a malignancy-first journal instead
- whether a sister journal like Blood Advances is the more honest home
Those are still the real fit questions.
Why the profile matters for authors
At this SJR level, Blood does not need to stretch for narrow papers that happen to be technically good. The journal's profile reflects a specific editorial product:
- broad hematology relevance
- enough consequence that many hematologists will care
- work that remains useful across the field
- a mix of mechanistic, translational, and clinical papers that still feel flagship-level
That is why the metrics are useful. They show the journal's standing is real enough that the breadth bar matters.
What should drive the submission decision instead
The better question is whether the manuscript is truly a Blood paper.
That is why the better next reads are:
- Is Blood a good journal?
- Blood submission guide
- Blood submission process
- Blood impact factor
If the paper is strong but still too narrow, too preliminary, or too local in audience, the metrics do not rescue the mismatch. They only explain why the flagship screen is so hard.
Practical verdict
Blood has a genuine flagship Scopus profile for hematology. That makes it a strong target when the manuscript has obvious blood-disease relevance and enough breadth that the wider hematology field will still care.
But the useful takeaway is still fit, not admiration. If the story only matters to a small corner of the field, the metric is already warning you. A free Manusights scan is the fastest way to pressure-test that before submission.
- Blood submission guide, Manusights.
Sources
- 1. Blood article record with Scopus-linked metrics, CoLab.
- 2. Blood journal page, ASH Publications.
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.