eLife Impact Factor

eLife did not voluntarily withdraw from Journal Citation Reports in 2023. Web of Science paused indexing new eLife Versions of Record in its Science Citation Index Expanded on October 23, 2024 while it reevaluated the reviewed-preprint model against its editorial criteria.

In December 2024, eLife said it would provide a partial feed to Web of Science. That feed includes Versions of Record whose eLife Assessments rate the strength of evidence as "solid" or above. eLife estimated that roughly 93% of its Versions of Record would remain eligible for inclusion, while papers assessed as "incomplete" or "inadequate" would not.

The practical consequence is precise: eLife is only partially indexed, and Web of Science does not award a Journal Impact Factor to partially indexed journals. That indexing outcome followed the model change, but it is not accurate to say eLife simply chose to leave JCR.

The last published JIF for eLife was 6.4 in the 2023 JCR. Earlier figures included approximately 7.7 in 2022 and 8.713 in 2021. Those values are historical context, not current rankings.

Those historical numbers put eLife in the upper-single-digit citation band before JIF eligibility ended. They should not be carried forward as a current impact factor.

The year-over-year point is that eLife's published JIF moved from 8.713 in 2021 to roughly 7.7 in 2022 and 6.4 in 2023 before the indexing question became structural. The absence of a current JIF is therefore not another annual decline. It is an eligibility outcome tied to partial indexing.

Without a current JIF, eLife emphasizes article-level evidence to communicate the reach of its papers:

• Downloads and page views as indicators of readership

• Citation counts from Crossref, Scopus, and Google Scholar (these still exist regardless of JCR participation)

• Altmetric scores tracking social media, news, and policy mentions

• Review transparency through publicly visible peer review alongside each paper

The idea is that individual paper metrics matter more than a single journal-level number. The indexing picture now differs by record type: eLife says all Versions of Record remain indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar, while only the eligible partial feed goes to the Web of Science Core Collection. Reviewed Preprints moved to the Scopus Preprints Collection. The papers still accumulate citations, but authors should not describe every eLife record as fully indexed in every database.

Across Manusights submission reviews for life-sciences manuscripts considering eLife, three patterns come up consistently:

These are specific risk patterns because the eLife impact factor question is rarely only about a number. We observe authors using the missing JIF as a proxy for three separate decisions: whether the paper will be respected, whether the public review record helps or hurts, and whether their institution will accept article-level evidence instead of a journal-level metric. In practice, the metric issue is usually a career-context problem before it is a citation problem.

The "no desk rejection = easier acceptance" misconception. Authors sometimes choose eLife because the reviewed preprint model appears to guarantee that every paper gets a fair hearing. That's not quite accurate. eLife still has an editorial triage step that determines whether a submission receives full peer review. Papers that don't pass that triage are returned without review, they just get returned faster. The meaningful acceptance rate for papers that enter the full reviewed-preprint process is still selective, and the bar for what receives review hasn't changed because the model changed.

The public review record problem for early-career researchers. Under eLife's model, the peer review reports are published alongside the paper. For a strong paper with constructive reviews, this is a feature. For a paper that required substantial revision or attracted pointed criticism (even if ultimately published) the review history becomes part of the permanent public record.

Job candidates applying to faculty positions or researchers seeking grants may find that hiring committees and reviewers look at the attached reviews alongside the paper itself. Authors who don't consider this exposure in advance sometimes find it uncomfortable in ways a traditional journal wouldn't create.

Submitting for the wrong reason. eLife does its best work as a target for papers where the open peer review, fast publication, and transparent editorial process are genuine advantages for the science. Papers submitted primarily because the JIF question is awkward, or because authors want to avoid traditional peer review dynamics, tend to have a harder experience. The journal's editorial culture expects authors who are actually invested in the transparent review model. Submitting because it seems easier than a traditional journal is usually a miscalculation.

There are a few practical reasons this query persists:

Promotion and tenure committees. Many institutional evaluation committees still use journal-level impact factors when assessing publication records. A journal with no JIF can create friction in these conversations, even if the papers themselves are well-cited.

Grant applications. Some funding bodies ask applicants to list journal impact factors alongside publications. Without a number, researchers need to explain the gap or provide alternative evidence of quality.

Lab shortlisting. When building a submission target list, most researchers filter by impact factor. A journal that doesn't appear in JCR simply drops off these lists by default.

Peer comparison. Early-career researchers comparing their own publication record to competitors' often use JIF as a quick proxy. eLife's absence from that ranking makes the comparison less straightforward.

These are real constraints. The ideological case for abandoning impact factors is one thing; the practical reality of academic hiring and funding committees is another.

Submit if:

• Your paper is strong life-sciences research that benefits from open peer review

• You value transparency and speed over traditional prestige signaling

• Your institution or field accepts alternative metrics and doesn't penalize missing JIF

• The work fits eLife's scope (life sciences, broadly defined)

Think twice if:

• Your tenure case or grant depends on journal-level impact factors

• Colleagues in your subfield don't recognize eLife as a top-tier target

• You need the JIF number for institutional reporting requirements

• The publish-then-review model creates uncertainty about how the final version is perceived

A eLife vs traditional journal fit check can help you decide whether eLife's editorial model works for your specific paper and career context, or whether a more traditional venue is the smarter strategic choice.

eLife's reviewed-preprint model is part of a broader movement in academic publishing (including DORA) pushing back against journal-level metrics as proxies for research quality. Whether that movement succeeds at the institutional level is still unclear. For now, many researchers live in a hybrid world where alternative metrics are respected in principle but impact factors still dominate in practice.

The honest read is this: eLife publishes strong science. The papers are indexed, citable, and discoverable. But the lack of a JIF creates real friction for authors in systems that still rely on journal-level metrics. You should make the decision based on your own institutional context, not just on whether the journal's philosophy aligns with yours.

For eLife, this page exists to answer a practical problem: many authors still need to compare a journal with no current JIF against journals that hiring committees and grant reviewers can rank instantly. That means the right use of the page is not to force a fake replacement number. It is to help you decide whether eLife's model, visibility, and article-level discoverability are enough for your situation.

If your field or institution still leans heavily on journal-level metrics, the missing JIF creates real friction. If your priority is transparent review, open discussion, and a life-sciences audience that recognizes eLife on its own terms, the lack of a listed JIF may matter much less.

Before eLife became ineligible for a JIF, the journal's citation profile lived in the upper-single-digit range. Web of Science later paused indexing and eLife adopted a partial-feed arrangement rather than changing its model. That sequence matters: the missing metric reflects an indexing-policy outcome, not evidence that eLife papers became academically invisible.

• eLife submission guide

• eLife submission process

• eLife review time

• Is eLife a good journal?