JAMA Internal Medicine Impact Factor

JAMA Internal Medicine is a JAMA Network journal for peer-reviewed

evidence relevant to general internal medicine and its subspecialties. It is

not JAMA, JAMA Network Open, JAMA Cardiology, JAMA Oncology, or

the similarly named Journal of Internal Medicine. The exact ISSNs are

2168-6106 for print and 2168-6114 for online.

The current publisher record establishes the 2025 JIF of 23.3, but a

complete, source-audited annual series was not used for this page. We therefore

do not publish a multi-year chart, calculate a change from a prior JIF, or

forecast a next value. A directory result can label its own release differently

from the publisher, which is not enough to establish a formal trend.

For a promotion packet, grant, institutional report, or formal ranking

comparison, verify the exact annual row in licensed Journal Citation Reports.

The current lookup is useful for the exact search query, but it does not prove

that the metric rose, fell, or predicts an individual article’s citation count.

A live search can surface numbers from directories, cached pages, or records

with a different release label. The named failure pattern for this query is

source-conflict substitution: a reader sees a different number in a

third-party result and copies it without matching the title, year, and primary

record. For this page, the current JAMA Network author material and the

journal’s 2025 Year in Review both state 23.3. That is the value reported

here.

This is a record-verification page, not a claim that every publisher metric

overrides a licensed JCR report. The practical rule is narrower: for a public

current lookup, preserve the full journal identity, metric year, and source

together instead of transferring an unverified search snippet into a CV or

submission plan.

The JIF answers a citation-metric question. The 12% overall and 4% research

acceptance rates answer historical selectivity questions. The one-day and

35-day medians describe prior timing distributions. JAMA Network reports them

together, but they are not interchangeable and no metric resolves whether a

specific study is clinically relevant, credible, or suitable for a broad

internal-medicine readership.

The JIF does not establish an acceptance probability for one author, a required

citation count, a guaranteed decision, an article processing charge, a category

rank, or a recommendation to submit. The 12% and 4% acceptance figures are

also journal aggregates. A manuscript can be rejected quickly, reviewed more

slowly, revised, or routed elsewhere for reasons that the metric cannot see.

Clarivate describes JIF as a journal-level ratio involving citations and

citable items across the relevant two-year window. It should not be used as a

responsible proxy for the quality of one article or researcher. For formal

institutional use, follow the metric source and policy required by that

institution.

Practice-change claim without a decision-grade comparison. The journal’s

author material emphasizes clinical relevance and practice change. Before

submission, make the population, comparator or exposure, outcome, effect

estimate, uncertainty, and implementation boundary easy to inspect. A

statistically significant association alone does not establish a

practice-changing conclusion.

Broad-reader claim built from a narrow service setting. A single-service,

single-system, or specialty-only finding can be valuable yet still need a

clear reason why general internal-medicine readers should act on it. State the

transfer boundary instead of using broad language that the design cannot

support.

Speed metric treated as a manuscript forecast. The reported one-day and

35-day medians describe prior journal outcomes. They do not show that a

submission will clear editorial screening, receive external review, or reach a

decision by a given deadline.

These are Manusights pre-submission checks derived from the publisher’s stated

clinical-relevance and credibility priorities, not claims about confidential

editorial rules. [Run a JAMA Internal Medicine submission readiness

check](/ai-review?target_journal=JAMA%20Internal%20Medicine&source_blog=jama-internal-medicine-impact-factor&primary_concern=journal_fit)

before using the metric to justify a target-journal decision.

This page was created by the Manusights editorial team after checking the

current publisher record for readers who need to verify a number before citing

it. This page helps when the decision is whether a displayed value is the current

metric for this exact journal, rather than an older JAMA-family number or a

directory result with a different label.

The page owns only the JAMA Internal Medicine impact-factor lookup. It does

not own submission mechanics, under-review status interpretation, fees, or

general journal comparison. Those are separate reader jobs, so keeping this

page metric-first avoids competing with the existing guides.

For a formal citation, retain the journal title, metric name, metric year, and

source together: "JAMA Internal Medicine’s 2025 Journal Impact Factor is 23.3,

according to JAMA Network." That wording avoids converting a 2025 citation

metric into a 2026 citation-year value.

• Match JAMA Internal Medicine, its publisher, and both ISSNs.
• Describe 23.3 as a 2025 JIF, not a 2026 citation-year value.
• Prefer the current JAMA Network record over a directory snippet that conflicts.
• Do not substitute acceptance rate or decision-time medians for the JIF.
• Verify formal ranks, percentiles, historical changes, and policy decisions in JCR.

For a manuscript-level decision, use the [JAMA Internal Medicine submission

guide](/blog/jama-internal-medicine-submission-guide), the [JAMA Internal

Medicine under-review guide](/blog/jama-internal-medicine-under-review), and a

best internal medicine journals shortlist.

Those pages answer different questions and should not be used to replace the

exact metric lookup.