Cancer Cell SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell Authors
Cancer Cell's Scopus profile is unusually strong for an oncology journal. The useful question is not whether the journal is elite, but whether your manuscript is really Cancer Cell-shaped.
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.
Cancer Cell at a glance
Key metrics to place the journal before deciding whether it fits your manuscript and career goals.
What makes this journal worth targeting
- IF 44.5 puts Cancer Cell in a visible tier — citations from papers here carry real weight.
- Scope specificity matters more than impact factor for most manuscript decisions.
- Acceptance rate of ~~8-10% means fit determines most outcomes.
When to look elsewhere
- When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope — borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
- If timeline matters: Cancer Cell takes ~~8 weeks. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
- If OA is required: gold OA costs $10,400 USD. Check institutional agreements before submitting.
Quick answer: Cancer Cell has a flagship Scopus profile for oncology biology and translation.
Current Scopus-linked sources place it at SJR 19.027, impact score 24.69, rank 17, and h-index 416 in 2024. That is elite by any oncology standard. The real submission question is whether the manuscript is mechanistic and translational enough for Cancer Cell, not just strong enough to matter somewhere in cancer research.
Direct answer
If you are asking whether Cancer Cell still sits near the top of the oncology citation network, the answer is clearly yes.
Metric | Current value | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
SJR | 19.027 | prestige-weighted influence is exceptional for oncology |
Impact Score | 24.69 | citation density is extremely strong for a specialist cancer journal |
Global rank | 17 | this is a top-of-system journal, not just a strong specialty venue |
h-index | 416 | the archive has deep long-run authority |
Best quartile | Q1 | the title remains firmly top-tier across cancer-related categories |
Coverage history | 2002-2025 | the journal's position is mature and durable |
That profile says Cancer Cell is not only well regarded. It is structurally central in oncology biology.
Overview
The useful read is that Cancer Cell occupies a narrow but very high lane: mechanistic cancer biology with visible translational consequence. The metric profile makes sense only if you read it in that frame.
What changed in 2024
The 2024 update is a real strengthening year.
- SJR moved up from 17.507 in 2023 to 19.027 in 2024
- impact score moved up from 19.83 to 24.69
- global rank improved from 22 to 17
That is not a flat hold. It is a stronger current signal than the immediate prior year, and it reinforces the idea that the journal is still being cited from the top of the oncology ecosystem.
Ten-year SJR and Scopus trend
Year | SJR | Impact Score | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
2024 | 19.027 | 24.69 | 17 |
2023 | 17.507 | 19.83 | 22 |
2022 | 12.578 | 21.28 | 47 |
2021 | 9.975 | 20.70 | 65 |
2020 | 13.035 | 19.50 | 44 |
2019 | 11.909 | 17.13 | 51 |
2018 | 11.741 | 14.23 | 61 |
2017 | 12.700 | 14.30 | 51 |
2016 | 13.509 | 18.81 | 45 |
2015 | 13.740 | 16.44 | 41 |
2014 | 14.883 | 16.73 | 35 |
The trend is striking because Cancer Cell got stronger again after a softer early-2020s stretch. SJR nearly doubled from 9.975 in 2021 to 19.027 in 2024, while impact score climbed from 19.83 to 24.69 in just one year. That usually means the journal's recent papers are being cited more often and by stronger journals than they were only a few years ago.
What the trend means in practice
For authors, the trend usually means:
- the journal is currently operating from a position of real strength
- the oncology biology lane remains highly prestigious
- manuscripts that are only partly translational or partly mechanistic are more exposed, not less
In other words, stronger metrics here do not make the journal safer. They make wrong-fit submissions more expensive.
How Cancer Cell compares with nearby oncology venues
Journal | 2024 SJR | What the metric profile usually signals |
|---|---|---|
Cancer Cell | 19.027 | flagship oncology-biology and translation venue |
JAMA Oncology | 8.377 | high-end clinical and practice-changing oncology lane |
Nature Reviews Cancer | 24.378 | elite review venue, not a direct primary-research comparison |
This comparison matters because authors often mix up these lanes. Cancer Cell is not the same editorial room as JAMA Oncology, and neither should be compared directly with a reviews journal. The point is to locate where the manuscript's center of gravity really sits.
What editors are really screening for
The journal's identity still points to a specific product:
- mechanistic cancer biology, not only association or description
- translational consequence that is already visible in the evidence
- enough breadth to matter outside one tumor niche
- a paper that changes how cancer researchers think, not just what they know
That is why the SJR can be so high. The journal is not rewarding volume. It is rewarding papers that become conceptual reference points.
What we see in Cancer Cell Metric Questions
For Cancer Cell metric questions, three mistakes show up often.
The too-clinical mistake. Some strong oncology papers are really clinical-outcome or practice papers in disguise. Those are not automatically Cancer Cell papers, even if the disease importance is high.
The descriptive-biology mistake. Another common miss is biology that is interesting but not mechanistic enough. At this level, descriptive tumor profiling or pathway implication without a sharper causal story often reads incomplete.
The tumor-niche mistake. We also see papers that matter a great deal inside one disease subtype but do not travel broadly enough across oncology. The metrics help reveal why the journal can screen that out quickly.
That is the real information value of the number. The profile is strong because the journal remains selective about mechanistic and translational shape.
What these metrics mean for authors
For authors, the current profile says:
- publication here still carries major oncology-biology authority
- the archive is strong enough that partial mechanism claims will be tested hard
- translational relevance has to be visible, not only promised
- a prestigious cancer paper can still be the wrong Cancer Cell paper
The h-index of 416 reinforces that point. Readers come to this journal expecting papers that will stay useful as cancer biology and therapy move forward.
Submit If / Think Twice If
Submit if:
- the manuscript has mechanistic depth and translational consequence in the same paper
- the cancer relevance is obvious beyond one narrow tumor niche
- the evidence is complete enough that the biological claim already feels durable
- the paper changes how researchers think about a pathway, tumor system, or therapeutic logic
Think twice if:
- the manuscript is more clinical than mechanistic
- the biology is suggestive but still incomplete
- the translational consequence depends on a weak bridge from model to disease
- the strongest audience is one specialty oncology community rather than the broader cancer-research field
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
What should drive the submission decision instead
The better question is whether the manuscript is genuinely a Cancer Cell paper.
That is why the better next reads are:
If the paper is primarily about clinical practice, the metrics do not make Cancer Cell right. If it is still descriptive rather than mechanistic, the metrics do not rescue that either. A Cancer Cell submission framing check is a direct way to pressure-test that before submission.
Practical verdict
Cancer Cell has a genuine flagship Scopus profile for oncology biology. The 2024 numbers are not only high. They are strengthening again.
For authors, that means the journal is an exceptional target when the manuscript is mechanistically strong, translationally meaningful, and broad enough to matter across cancer research. If the paper is more clinical, narrower, or less complete than that, the same metrics are already warning you.
Frequently asked questions
Cancer Cell's 2024 SJR is 19.027, which places it in Q1 and near the top of oncology and cancer-research journals in Scopus.
Cancer Cell's 2024 CiteScore is 57.7, with top-tier ranks in oncology-related categories.
Cancer Cell is stronger for mechanistic and translational oncology, while JCO and Lancet Oncology are stronger for practice-changing clinical evidence. The right choice depends on whether the paper's center of gravity is biology or clinical care.
No. The real question is whether the manuscript is truly mechanistic and translational enough for a flagship oncology-biology journal.
Sources
- 1. Cancer Cell metrics page, Resurchify.
- 2. Cancer Cell journal page, Cell Press.
- 3. Cancer Cell authors, Cell Press.
- 4. JAMA Oncology metrics page, Resurchify.
- 5. Nature Reviews Cancer journal metrics, Nature Portfolio.
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
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Cancer Cell Submission Guide: What Editors Want, What Gets Rejected, and How to Prepare the Package
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Cancer Cell
- Is Cancer Cell a Good Journal? Impact Factor, Comparison, and Fit Verdict
- Pre-Submission Review for Oncology Journals: What Cancer Cell and JCO Reviewers Expect
- Cancer Cell Submission Process: What Happens Before Review and Where Packages Fail
- Cancer Cell 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and Realistic Timelines
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.