Chemical Reviews SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell Authors
Chemical Reviews looks extraordinary in Scopus because it is an invited review journal. The useful question is not prestige alone, but whether you are actually writing the kind of review the venue exists to publish.
Associate Professor, Organic Chemistry
Author context
Specializes in organic chemistry and catalysis manuscript preparation, with direct experience at JACS, Angewandte Chemie, and Organic Letters.
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: Chemical Reviews has an extraordinary Scopus profile. Recent Scopus-derived metric sources place the journal around an SJR of 16.455, a Scopus impact score of 53.84, and top-tier Q1 standing in chemistry. That confirms elite authority, but the useful interpretation is format-specific: this is an invited review venue, not a primary-research target.
The core metric picture
Metric | Current read | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
SJR | 16.455 | Prestige-weighted influence is exceptionally high |
Scopus impact score | 53.84 | Long-window citation performance is extraordinary |
Quartile | Q1 | The journal sits at the very top of chemistry rankings |
Ranking context | Near the top of chemistry review venues | The journal acts like a reference layer for the field |
JCR context | Impact factor 55.8 | Web of Science tells the same elite-review story |
The useful reading is not that Chemical Reviews behaves like a harder version of JACS. It behaves like one of the most powerful review journals in chemistry.
What the metrics actually help with
They help answer the right authority question:
- is Chemical Reviews still one of the strongest review venues in chemistry?
- do the citations come from the top chemistry network rather than weak volume effects?
- do Scopus and JCR still agree that this is a field-defining review journal?
The answer is yes. The metrics confirm that Chemical Reviews remains one of the clearest prestige signals available for invited chemistry reviews.
What the metrics do not answer
They do not tell you:
- whether a primary-research paper should be compared with this journal
- whether the invitation opportunity is the right use of your time
- whether the proposed review is broad enough to justify the venue
- whether a shorter review or account format would be truer
Those are still the real publishing questions.
Why the profile matters for authors
At this SJR level, Chemical Reviews is buying authors:
- one of the strongest review-journal signals in chemistry
- durable citation reach because articles become long-lived reference maps
- a journal signal that committees across disciplines can recognize quickly
- prestige tied to authoritative synthesis rather than ordinary primary-research selectivity
That is why the numbers look almost absurd. The journal publishes articles designed to become standard references, and the metrics reflect that.
What should drive the decision instead
The better question is whether you are actually writing a Chemical Reviews article.
That is why the better next reads are:
- Is Chemical Reviews a good journal?
- Chemical Reviews submission guide
- Chemical Reviews submission process
- Chemical Reviews impact factor
If you are preparing a broad, authoritative synthesis and the editorial fit is real, the metrics confirm the opportunity is major. If you are really trying to benchmark a primary-research paper, the same metrics are telling you this is the wrong comparison set.
Practical verdict
Chemical Reviews has an elite Scopus-style profile because it is one of the most powerful review venues in chemistry. That makes it a serious destination for invited, field-defining synthesis articles.
But the useful takeaway is still format truth, not prestige inflation. If you are not writing a true top-end review, the numbers do not make the journal the right target. A free Manusights scan is the fastest way to pressure-test where a primary chemistry manuscript actually belongs.
- Chemical Reviews impact factor, Manusights.
- Is Chemical Reviews a good journal?, Manusights.
Sources
- 1. Chemical Reviews metrics page, Resurchify.
- 2. Chemical Reviews author guidelines, ACS.
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.