Brain Impact Factor
Brain impact factor is 12.6. See the current rank, quartile, and what the number actually means before you submit.
Journal evaluation
Want the full picture on Brain?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether Brain is realistic.
A fuller snapshot for authors
Use Brain'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 Brain 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.
CiteScore: 17.3. These longer-window metrics help show whether the journal's citation performance is stable beyond a single JIF snapshot.
How authors actually use Brain'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 Brain 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: ~15%. High JIF does not tell you how hard triage will be.
- First decision: 6-8 weeks. 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: Brain impact factor is 12.6 in the current 2025 Journal Impact Factor row. Brain also has a five-year JIF of 13.9 and a Q1 rank of 6/296 in Clinical Neurology.
Impact-factor source note
For Brain, use the 2025 Journal Impact Factor alongside the Clinical Neurology rank, five-year JIF, and Oxford University Press metrics context shown here. Before comparing it with broader neuroscience journals, confirm the current Clarivate row or the journal profile so the neurology category basis is clear.
The practical read is that this is a flagship neurology journal, not just a respected neuroscience title. The useful submission question is not whether the number is strong enough. It is whether the manuscript has enough neurological consequence, mechanistic depth, and translational clarity to justify a Brain-level desk read.
Brain impact factor at a glance
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor | 12.6 |
5-Year JIF | 13.9 |
JIF Without Self-Cites | 11.4 |
JCI | 3.29 |
Quartile | Q1 |
Category Rank | 6/296 |
Total Cites | 62,642 |
Citable Items | 332 |
Total Articles (2024) | 296 |
Cited Half-Life | 9.6 years |
Scopus impact score 2024 | 9.05 |
SJR 2024 | 4.72 |
h-index | 391 |
Publisher | Oxford University Press |
ISSN | 0006-8950 / 1460-2156 |
That rank places the journal in roughly the top 2% of Clinical Neurology by JCR position.
What 12.6 actually tells you
The first signal is status. Brain is operating in the flagship neurology tier, not in the broad middle of neuroscience publishing.
The second signal is durability. The five-year JIF of 13.9 sits above the current JIF, and the cited half-life of 9.6 years is long. That means the journal's best papers tend to remain useful well after the short-term citation window fades.
The third signal is normalized strength. The JCI of 3.29 is very strong. That matters because clinical neurology and neuroscience have varied citation behavior across imaging, cognitive neurology, movement disorders, neurodegeneration, and translational model work. Brain is clearly outperforming its category baseline after normalization.
The fourth signal is cleanliness. The JIF without self-cites is 11.4, almost the same as the headline JIF. That is another reason to treat the metric as durable and credible.
Brain impact factor trend
Use the official metric row above for the Brain Journal Impact Factor. The Scopus impact-score series below is included only as directional context for whether the journal's neurology influence is strengthening or softening over time.
Year | Scopus impact score |
|---|---|
2014 | 8.24 |
2015 | 8.40 |
2016 | 7.58 |
2017 | 7.29 |
2018 | 7.60 |
2019 | 7.10 |
2020 | 7.47 |
2021 | 8.93 |
2022 | 8.68 |
2023 | 8.29 |
2024 | 9.05 |
Directionally, the open citation signal is up from 8.29 in 2023 to 9.05 in 2024. The larger pattern is a stable high-impact neurology journal that has strengthened again after a flatter middle period.
That fits the official Oxford page too. Brain still presents itself as a home for landmark papers in clinical neurology and translational neuroscience, and the metrics support that positioning.
Why the number can mislead authors
The most common mistake is to see 12.6 and assume Brain works like a broad elite neuroscience journal.
That misses the real screen. Brain may publish mechanistic and translational neuroscience, but it is still fundamentally a neurology journal. Papers often miss here when they are:
- biologically strong but too basic
- clinically relevant but not mechanistically deep enough
- technically rigorous but too narrow in neurological consequence
The number says the journal is elite. It does not say that any strong neuroscience paper has the right ownership here.
How Brain compares with nearby choices
Journal | Best fit | When it beats Brain | When Brain is stronger |
|---|---|---|---|
Brain | Flagship clinical neurology and translational neuroscience | When the paper has major neurological consequence and mechanistic or clinical depth | When the manuscript is disease-relevant enough to matter to a top neurology readership |
Annals of Neurology | Another top neurology target | When the paper's framing or audience fits a slightly different clinical neurology lane | When the paper has stronger mechanistic-translational identity |
Neuron | Higher-end systems and basic neuroscience | When the manuscript is more general neuroscience than clinical neurology | When the study's core consequence is neurological disease or clinical translation |
Journal of Neuroscience | Broad neuroscience venue | When the paper is too broad, too basic, or too incremental for a flagship neurology desk | When the neurological consequence is stronger and more field-defining |
That comparison is why this page matters commercially. Authors are often deciding whether the work is truly a Brain paper or simply a good neuroscience paper with disease relevance.
What pre-submission reviews reveal about Brain submissions
In our neurology review work, manuscripts that fit Brain best make the disease consequence visible before the methods become specialized. Three patterns drive most desk-rejection outcomes.
The science is strong, but the neurological consequence is still too implied. We often see excellent mechanistic work where the disease or clinical implication is more hoped-for than convincingly shown.
The study is clinically interesting, but the paper lacks enough mechanistic depth. Brain usually wants more than a useful observation if the biological explanation remains too thin.
The manuscript feels like excellent neuroscience rather than flagship neurology. That difference sounds subtle, but editors make it quickly.
If that sounds familiar, a Brain submission readiness review is usually more useful than another round of cosmetic editing.
The information gain that matters here
The official Oxford Academic about page adds useful source context beyond the headline JIF. It currently lists:
- 2025 Impact Factor 12.6
- 2025 5-Year Impact Factor 13.9
- Clinical Neurology rank by impact factor: 6/296
- 2025 Cited Half-Life 9.6 years
- 2025 median days from submission to first decision: 6 days
The broader message is consistent across the current source checks: Brain combines flagship status with fast editorial triage.
That matters because it changes how authors should read the metric. Brain is not only high impact. It is high impact and editorially impatient.
Official submission signals behind the metric
The current OUP author materials make the editorial screen more specific than the impact factor alone.
Source-backed detail | Current Brain signal | Submission implication |
|---|---|---|
Submission system | ScholarOne submission portal: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/brain | The cover letter, article type, reporting checklist, and reviewer fields need to tell one story. |
Editor-in-Chief | Verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a cover letter. | Fit is read through a clinical-neurology and cognitive-neuroscience lens, not a generic biology lens. |
Original Articles | 6,000-word main-text limit, 400-word abstract, 8 display items | The abstract has room for mechanism, cohort, evidence level, and neurological consequence. |
Reports | 2,500-word limit, 200-word abstract, 4 display items | Shorter manuscripts need a cleaner conceptual advance, not just less text. |
Peer review | all papers are seen by the Editorial Board; suitable papers go to at least two experts | The first editorial read matters before reviewer selection begins. |
OUP 2025 timing metric | 6 median days from submission to first decision | The desk screen is fast enough that the opening claim and fit rationale need to be obvious immediately. |
In our analysis of Brain-targeted neurology manuscripts, the specific rejection pattern is "good neuroscience, not mechanistic neurology." That is an editorial culture problem, not a language problem. We see authors spend days polishing the abstract while the paper still fails to show why the disease mechanism matters to a broad clinical neurology reader.
How to use this number in journal selection
Use the impact factor to place Brain correctly. It is a flagship clinical neurology target with durable citation performance.
Then ask the harder question: would a neurologist understand the field consequence from page one?
That means checking whether the manuscript:
- makes the disease or neurological consequence obvious early
- has enough mechanistic or clinical depth to justify the target
- speaks beyond one narrow technical audience
- feels like neurology-led translational science rather than basic neuroscience with disease language
If the answer is yes, the number supports submission. If the answer is no, the impact factor can flatter a paper that really belongs in Neuron, Journal of Neuroscience, or another nearby venue.
What the number does not tell you
The impact factor does not tell you whether the paper is neurologically important enough, whether the translational bridge is convincing enough, or whether the better home is a broader neuroscience journal.
That is the main trap. The metric can tempt authors to overread prestige while underrating fit.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit if:
- the paper has clear neurological consequence
- the mechanism or clinical logic is strong enough to support the claim
- the manuscript feels relevant to a broad clinical neurology readership
- the translational payoff is visible without a long explanation
Think twice if:
- the study is still mainly basic neuroscience
- the disease consequence is more implied than demonstrated
- the clinical observation is strong but mechanistically thin
- the better owner is a broad neuroscience journal
Bottom line
Brain has an impact factor of 12.6 and a five-year JIF of 13.9. The stronger signal is the combination of top-tier clinical neurology rank, very strong normalized influence, and long citation durability.
That makes it a flagship target. It does not make it the right home for papers whose neurological consequence is still too soft.
Frequently asked questions
Brain has a 2025 Journal Impact Factor of 12.6, with a five-year JIF of 13.9. It is Q1 and ranks 6th out of 296 journals in Clinical Neurology.
Yes. Brain is one of the strongest neurology journals in the world, especially for disease-mechanism and translational neuroscience papers with major clinical consequence.
No. Brain is not a general neuroscience home. It rewards papers with clear neurological consequence, strong mechanistic or clinical logic, and field-level importance.
The common misses are technically good neuroscience papers that feel too basic, clinical papers without strong mechanistic depth, and studies whose neurological consequence is too implied.
Use it to place Brain as a flagship clinical neurology target, then judge whether the manuscript has enough neurological consequence and translational clarity for that level.
Sources
- Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (2026 release used for the page)
- Brain journal about page
- Brain instructions for authors
- Brain editorial board
- Resurchify: Brain
Before you upload
Want the full picture on Brain?
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. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.