JAMA Cardiology Impact Factor
JAMA Cardiology impact factor is 15.6. See the current rank, quartile, and what the number actually means before you submit.
Associate Professor, Clinical Medicine & Public Health
Author context
Specializes in clinical and epidemiological research publishing, with direct experience preparing manuscripts for NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, and The Lancet.
Journal evaluation
Want the full picture on JAMA Cardiology?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether JAMA Cardiology is realistic.
A fuller snapshot for authors
Use JAMA Cardiology'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 JAMA Cardiology 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.
How authors actually use JAMA Cardiology'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 JAMA Cardiology 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: ~8%. High JIF does not tell you how hard triage will be.
- First decision: 14-21 days. 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: JAMA Cardiology has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 14.1, a five-year JIF of 15.6, and a Q1 rank of 7/230 in Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems. That puts it near the top of clinical cardiology. The practical issue is not whether the number is strong. It is whether the manuscript has broad enough cardiology consequence to justify a JAMA-style editorial screen rather than a narrower specialty readership.
JAMA Cardiology impact factor at a glance
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor | 14.1 |
5-Year JIF | 15.6 |
JIF Without Self-Cites | 13.7 |
JCI | 4.03 |
Quartile | Q1 |
Category Rank | 7/230 |
Total Cites | 14,345 |
Citable Items | 118 |
Total Articles (2024) | 113 |
Cited Half-Life | 4.6 years |
Scopus impact score 2024 | 6.24 |
SJR 2024 | 5.936 |
h-index | 127 |
Publisher | American Medical Association |
ISSN | 2380-6583 / 2380-6591 |
That rank places the journal in roughly the top 3% of its JCR category.
What 14.1 actually tells you
The first signal is category strength. JAMA Cardiology sits in the upper tier of broad clinical cardiology journals.
The second signal is normalized influence. The JCI of 4.03 is very strong, which matters because cardiology includes a wide spread of trial-driven, imaging-driven, and subspecialty citation cultures.
The third signal is consistency. The five-year JIF of 15.6 is above the two-year JIF, which suggests the journal's strongest work holds attention over time.
The fourth signal is cleanliness. The JIF without self-cites is 13.7, close to the headline number.
The practical read is that this is not only a high-impact journal. It is a high-visibility clinical journal with a large dissemination system around it.
JAMA Cardiology impact factor trend
The JCR row above is the authoritative impact factor on this page. For the longer directional view, the table below uses the open Scopus-based impact score series as a trend proxy.
Year | Scopus impact score |
|---|---|
2016 | 0.00 |
2017 | 5.34 |
2018 | 4.89 |
2019 | 4.74 |
2020 | 5.35 |
2021 | 12.71 |
2022 | 10.37 |
2023 | 6.46 |
2024 | 6.24 |
Directionally, the open citation signal is down from 6.46 in 2023 to 6.24 in 2024. The better interpretation is not decline in journal quality. It is normalization after the unusual post-pandemic cardiology citation cycle.
Why the number can mislead authors
The common mistake is to treat JAMA Cardiology as simply "a strong cardiology journal."
That is too vague to be useful. JAMA Cardiology is built around broadly relevant clinical cardiology with visible practice consequence. Many strong cardiology papers do not have that shape.
Papers often miss here when they are:
- technically strong but mostly subspecialty-local
- clinically interesting without a broad cardiology consequence
- good analyses where the practical takeaway arrives too late
- better suited to JACC family subspecialty journals or other focused cardiology owners
The number says the journal is selective. It does not say the paper has the right breadth.
How JAMA Cardiology compares with nearby choices
Journal | Best fit | When it beats JAMA Cardiology | When JAMA Cardiology is stronger |
|---|---|---|---|
JAMA Cardiology | Broad clinical cardiology with strong dissemination | When the paper has wide cardiology consequence and JAMA-style readability | When visibility and broad clinical framing are central |
JACC | Flagship clinical cardiology | When the manuscript is even more central to broad cardiology decision-making or has stronger flagship cardiology fit | When the story aligns better with JAMA Network dissemination and editorial voice |
Circulation | Broad clinical and translational cardiology | When the paper is stronger in cardiovascular society-journal positioning or specific cardiovascular breadth | When the manuscript reads more naturally as a JAMA clinical audience paper |
European Heart Journal | High-end clinical cardiology with strong global authority | When the paper has an especially strong ESC or global-cardiology practice fit | When the paper benefits more from JAMA clinical packaging and reach |
That is the real competitive set. The metric should help you place the journal, not collapse different editorial models into one prestige bucket.
What pre-submission reviews reveal about JAMA Cardiology submissions
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting JAMA Cardiology, three patterns show up repeatedly.
The audience case is too narrow. Strong electrophysiology, imaging, prevention, or heart-failure papers often overestimate how broad they feel to a general cardiology editor.
The practical consequence is buried. Some manuscripts contain good results, but the first page does not make clear what cardiologists should think or do differently.
The package still reads like a specialty-journal paper. The work may be valid, but the framing, figure order, and abstract do not yet support a broad clinical-journal screen.
If that sounds familiar, a JAMA Cardiology submission readiness review is usually more helpful than another round of line edits.
The information gain that matters here
The official JAMA Cardiology materials add several useful non-JCR signals:
- 9% overall acceptance
- 8 days median to first decision without review
- 51 days median to first decision with review
- more than 5.6 million annual article views and downloads
That matters because it shows why the impact factor is commercially meaningful here. JAMA Cardiology is not only highly cited. It also has real downstream clinical visibility and a fast editorial filter.
How to use this number in journal selection
Use the impact factor to place JAMA Cardiology correctly. It is a high-end broad clinical cardiology target.
Then ask the harder question: would the paper change how a wide cardiology readership interprets risk, diagnosis, or treatment?
That usually means checking whether the manuscript:
- matters beyond one narrow subspecialty lane
- makes the practical consequence visible early
- supports the headline claim with stable methods and evidence
- reads naturally for general cardiology rather than only experts in one corner
If the answer is yes, the metric supports the target. If the answer is no, the number can flatter a paper that belongs in a narrower owner.
What the number does not tell you
The impact factor does not tell you whether the paper is broad enough, whether the first read lands quickly enough, or whether the real audience is a subspecialty cardiology journal.
Those are the real editorial screens.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit if:
- the manuscript has broad clinical cardiology relevance
- the practical implication is obvious in the abstract and early figures
- the package looks stable and review-ready
- the story reads naturally for a general cardiology editor
Think twice if:
- the best audience is one subspecialty group
- the practical consequence is still mostly implied
- the manuscript depends on late discussion framing to feel important
- a narrower cardiology journal is the more honest readership fit
Bottom line
JAMA Cardiology has an impact factor of 14.1 and a five-year JIF of 15.6. The stronger signal is the combination of upper-tier cardiology rank, high normalized influence, fast editorial screening, and broad JAMA Network visibility.
That makes it a serious target. It does not make it the right home for every strong cardiology paper.
Frequently asked questions
JAMA Cardiology has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 14.1, a five-year JIF of 15.6, and a Q1 rank of 7 out of 230 journals in Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems.
Yes. JAMA Cardiology sits near the top of the cardiology category and combines high citation performance with very broad clinical visibility through the JAMA Network.
No. JAMA Cardiology is selective about broad clinical consequence. Strong specialty work can still be better owned by a narrower cardiology journal.
The common misses are papers that are technically strong but too subspecialty-local, manuscripts whose practical consequence is not visible early, and stories that look more like a specialty-journal submission than a broad cardiology one.
Use it to place JAMA Cardiology correctly as a high-end broad clinical cardiology target, then judge whether the manuscript changes how a wide cardiology readership would think or act.
Sources
- Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR 2024 data used for the page)
- JAMA Cardiology about page
- JAMA Cardiology year in review, 2025
- Resurchify: JAMA Cardiology
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: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how journals compare, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Checklist system / operational asset
Elite Submission Checklist
A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.
Flagship report / decision support
Desk Rejection Report
A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.
Dataset / reference hub
Journal Intelligence Dataset
A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.
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.
Before you upload
Want the full picture on JAMA Cardiology?
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. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Is JAMA Cardiology a Good Journal? The JAMA Network's Cardiovascular Title
- JAMA Cardiology Submission Guide
- JAMA Cardiology Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at JAMA Cardiology
- JAMA Cardiology Cover Letter: What Editors Actually Need to See
- JAMA Cardiology Formatting Requirements: The Submission Package Guide
Compare alternatives
Supporting reads
Want the full picture on JAMA Cardiology?
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.