Circulation vs European Heart Journal: Which Should You Submit To?

Circulation's impact factor is 38.6; European Heart Journal's is 35.6 (2024 JCR). The difference is real but modest in cardiovascular publishing. Circulation ranks slightly ahead on JCR impact factor, but both are top-tier cardiology journals. In career terms, a Circulation publication is somewhat more prestigious in North America, while European Heart Journal carries equivalent weight across much of Europe. Hiring committees and grant panels recognize both as high-impact.

The prestige difference is real but not as dramatic as it might appear from the JIF numbers alone. Both journals are in the top 1% globally and top 1% within cardiology. For many careers, the difference is negligible compared to the choice between either of these and third-tier journals.

Circulation is published by the American Heart Association and serves a primarily North American audience, though it's widely read globally. American cardiology dominates the journal's editorial board, and US-based research receives priority coverage. The journal emphasizes American healthcare contexts, US regulatory perspectives, and cardiovascular epidemiology in developed Western countries.

European Heart Journal is published by the European Society of Cardiology and serves the European market primarily, though its readership is increasingly global. The journal emphasizes European healthcare systems, includes more research from Asia and developing countries, and publishes stronger representation of non-US cardiology perspectives.

In practice: If your research is based in the US or your target audience is primarily American cardiologists, Circulation is the default choice. If your research is European, involves European healthcare systems, or if you want broader international reach in non-Anglo markets, European Heart Journal has the advantage.

Circulation publishes the full spectrum of cardiovascular research: basic science, translational research, clinical trials, epidemiology, and health policy. Within that, the journal shows a slight preference for mechanistic research and studies with direct clinical implications for human cardiac disease. Basic science without clear clinical relevance is less likely to be prioritized.

European Heart Journal also publishes across all areas of cardiology but emphasizes prevention, epidemiology, and public health approaches to cardiovascular disease more than Circulation does. The journal is slightly stronger in health services research and cardiovascular prevention studies. European Heart Journal also publishes more research from lower-income countries and emerging markets.

If your work focuses on clinical mechanism or therapeutic targets, Circulation is a better fit. If your work emphasizes prevention, population health, or epidemiology, European Heart Journal has a slight advantage.

Circulation editors are rigorous with desk decisions. Papers without clear clinical relevance, studies with insufficient sample sizes, or work perceived as incremental are desk-rejected promptly (within 2-3 weeks). The bar for sending to peer review is high, but papers that pass this bar are given serious consideration.

European Heart Journal editors are slightly more permissive with borderline papers. If a paper is well-executed even if somewhat incremental, it's more likely to reach peer review at European Heart Journal than at Circulation. However, if Circulation rejects your paper, European Heart Journal isn't guaranteed acceptance—the editorial teams read and judge independently.

In practical terms: If you're on the fence about whether your work meets the impact bar, European Heart Journal might give you better odds at peer review.

Circulation: ~7% acceptance rate in current Manusights canonical data. Competition is intense.

European Heart Journal: ~10% acceptance rate in current Manusights canonical data. It is somewhat more accessible than Circulation, but still very selective.

Both journals are selective, but neither is as stringent as Nature or Science. You have a realistic chance at acceptance if your work is solid.

Circulation: 17 days median to first decision in current Manusights canonical data.

European Heart Journal: Initial decision within 3-4 weeks. Peer review turnaround is typically 8-10 weeks, with revisions adding 2-3 weeks. Total time: 3-5 months. Timeline is similar to Circulation.

Neither journal is fast, but both are faster than Nature or Science. Budget 3-4 months minimum.

If your work is based in the US or primarily addresses American cardiovascular disease: Submit to Circulation. It's the default choice and your audience reads it first.

If your work is European or involves European healthcare systems: European Heart Journal is the natural choice. Your work will reach the right audience faster.

If your research is global or multinational: Consider both, but start with whichever aligns with your lead author's affiliation and primary funding source.

If your work emphasizes prevention or epidemiology: European Heart Journal has a slight advantage in editorial appetite for this type of research.

If your work is mechanistic or translational with direct clinical relevance: Circulation is the better fit.

If you're unsure which fits better: Circulation is the safer choice globally. It's more widely read, carries slightly more prestige, and is the default first choice for most American cardiovascular researchers. If rejected, European Heart Journal is a logical second submission.

If Circulation rejects your paper, European Heart Journal is an excellent second choice. The journals are peers in quality, and rejection at Circulation doesn't predict rejection at European Heart Journal. The editor comments from Circulation can help strengthen your submission for European Heart Journal. The revision is usually minimal—reformat and resubmit with a response to Circulation's concerns.

Conversely, if European Heart Journal accepts your paper after Circulation rejection, that's a strong validation of your work. You're in good company—many solid cardiovascular papers find their home at European Heart Journal after Circulation isn't the right fit.

Circulation is the American journal—the default choice for prestige and North American reach. European Heart Journal is the European journal—slightly lower impact but broader international perspective, stronger in prevention science, and a better fit if your research has European roots. Both are top-tier cardiology journals, and both will advance your career. The choice should be based on geographic fit and research focus, not on prestige alone.

If you're in the US, Circulation is the natural first target. If you're in Europe, European Heart Journal is your journal. If you're global, pick whichever aligns with your research emphasis and author geography.