JAMA Oncology Impact Factor
JAMA Oncology impact factor is 20.1. 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 Oncology?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether JAMA Oncology is realistic.
A fuller snapshot for authors
Use JAMA Oncology'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 Oncology 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 Oncology'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 Oncology 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: 21 days median. 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 Oncology has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 20.1, a five-year JIF of 24.7, and a Q1 rank of 14/326 in Oncology. The practical read is that this is a high-end clinical oncology venue with very broad visibility. The useful submission question is not whether the metric is elite. It is whether the manuscript has enough clinical consequence, oncology-wide relevance, and editorial urgency to justify a JAMA Oncology desk read.
JAMA Oncology impact factor at a glance
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor | 20.1 |
5-Year JIF | 24.7 |
JIF Without Self-Cites | 19.7 |
JCI | 4.53 |
Quartile | Q1 |
Category Rank | 14/326 |
Total Cites | 29,807 |
Citable Items | 135 |
Total Articles (2024) | 122 |
Cited Half-Life | 5.0 years |
Scopus impact score 2024 | 8.32 |
SJR 2024 | 8.377 |
h-index | 193 |
Publisher | American Medical Association |
ISSN | 2374-2437 / 2374-2445 |
That rank places the journal in roughly the top 5% of oncology by JCR position.
What 20.1 actually tells you
The first signal is status. JAMA Oncology is operating in the upper tier of oncology journals that shape clinical attention quickly.
The second signal is durability. The five-year JIF of 24.7 is meaningfully above the current two-year JIF, which suggests the journal's best papers continue to matter after the initial wave of attention.
The third signal is normalized strength. The JCI of 4.53 is very strong. That matters because oncology spans highly variable subfields with very different citation cultures.
The fourth signal is cleanliness. The JIF without self-cites is 19.7, nearly identical to the headline JIF. That is another reason the metric should be taken seriously.
JAMA Oncology 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 |
|---|---|
2015 | 0.00 |
2016 | 5.04 |
2017 | 6.00 |
2018 | 7.35 |
2019 | 8.20 |
2020 | 8.60 |
2021 | 9.45 |
2022 | 8.64 |
2023 | 7.62 |
2024 | 8.32 |
Directionally, the open citation signal is up from 7.62 in 2023 to 8.32 in 2024, though still below the 2021 peak. That looks like a strong journal that normalized after an unusually hot citation period and then stabilized at a high level.
The better practical point is that the journal has established durable oncology authority quickly for a relatively young title.
Why the number can mislead authors
The common mistake is to treat JAMA Oncology as simply a high-impact oncology journal in the abstract.
That misses the real screen. The official JAMA Oncology about page frames the journal around influential original research, opinions, and reviews that advance oncology science and improve patient care. That means the journal is unusually sensitive to clinical consequence.
Papers often miss here when they are:
- solid specialty studies without broad oncology consequence
- translational studies that are promising but still too early
- observational papers where the management change argument is weaker than the statistical result
The number says the journal is elite. It does not say that any strong cancer paper belongs here.
How JAMA Oncology compares with nearby choices
Journal | Best fit | When it beats JAMA Oncology | When JAMA Oncology is stronger |
|---|---|---|---|
JAMA Oncology | High-consequence clinical oncology and broad oncology relevance | When the study could change practice, policy, or a wide clinical conversation | When the paper's main value is broad clinical attention and high visibility |
Journal of Clinical Oncology | Major practice-changing oncology | When the manuscript is more definitively trial- or guideline-shaping | When the study fits JAMA-style editorial breadth and public-medical reach |
Lancet Oncology | Flagship oncology with strong global and policy consequence | When the paper is even more field-defining or globally consequential | When the paper better fits the JAMA Network clinical-news and dissemination model |
Clinical Cancer Research | Translational oncology and biomarker-heavy work | When the study is strong but too translational or too specialized for JAMA Oncology | When the paper has broader clinical relevance and editorial urgency |
That comparison is why the page matters commercially. Authors are often choosing between a high-end specialist owner and a broad clinical megaphone.
What pre-submission reviews reveal about JAMA Oncology submissions
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting JAMA Oncology, three patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.
The study is strong, but the consequence stays too local. We repeatedly see excellent papers whose value is real but still limited to one disease niche or one methodological community.
The translational story is promising, but still too early. Many good biomarker and molecular oncology papers are still better owned by translational journals when the practice implications are not yet firm.
The editorial urgency is weaker than the result. JAMA Oncology often wants a paper to feel immediately important to oncology decision-making, not just scientifically interesting.
If that sounds familiar, a JAMA Oncology submission readiness review is usually more useful than polishing the discussion section again.
The information gain that matters here
The official JAMA Oncology about page adds useful non-JCR signals:
- Journal Impact Factor of 20.1
- broad dissemination through the JAMA Network
- more than 8.3 million annual article views and downloads
- 8% acceptance rate for all submissions
There is also a recent JAMA Oncology year-in-review editorial that reports 2024 Journal Impact Factor 22.3 for that year's retrospective summary. The current official about page now states 20.1. I am using the repo's internal JCR 2024 source of truth for this page, which matches the newer about-page signal and avoids stale drift.
That matters because it shows why the number is commercially meaningful here: JAMA Oncology is not only highly cited, it is also built for large downstream visibility.
How to use this number in journal selection
Use the impact factor to place JAMA Oncology correctly. It is a high-end clinical oncology target with broad dissemination power.
Then ask the harder question: would the paper change how a wide oncology readership thinks or acts?
That means checking whether the manuscript:
- has consequence beyond one specialty corner
- speaks clearly to clinical or management decisions
- carries enough urgency for a broad oncology audience
- is mature enough not to feel prematurely translational
If the answer is yes, the number supports the target. If the answer is no, the impact factor can flatter a paper that really belongs in a narrower oncology owner.
What the number does not tell you
The impact factor does not tell you whether the study is broad enough, practice-facing enough, or urgent enough for the journal's editorial model.
That is the real trap. The metric can make the journal seem like a generic prestige target when it is actually a very particular kind of clinical oncology target.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit if:
- the paper has broad oncology relevance
- the study has unusually strong clinical consequence
- the manuscript can support a JAMA-style editorial urgency case
- the results feel mature enough for a wide medical readership
Think twice if:
- the work is strong but specialty-local
- the translational logic is still too early
- the paper is more biomarker-rich than practice-consequential
- the better home is a tighter oncology owner
Bottom line
JAMA Oncology has an impact factor of 20.1 and a five-year JIF of 24.7. The stronger signal is the combination of high oncology rank, very strong normalized influence, and massive downstream clinical visibility.
That makes it a serious target. It does not make it the right home for oncology papers whose broad consequence is still too weak.
Frequently asked questions
JAMA Oncology has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 20.1, with a five-year JIF of 24.7. It is Q1 and ranks 14th out of 326 journals in Oncology.
Yes. JAMA Oncology is one of the highest-visibility oncology journals, especially for clinically consequential work that can influence practice, guidelines, or broad oncologic decision-making.
No. The journal is not a general catch-all for good oncology research. It rewards studies with unusually strong clinical consequence, broad oncology relevance, and editorial urgency.
The common misses are solid specialty oncology papers without broad consequence, translational studies that are still too early for a practice-facing audience, and observational work whose clinical change argument is too weak.
Use it to place JAMA Oncology as a high-end clinical oncology target, then judge whether the manuscript genuinely changes how oncologists think or act.
Sources
- Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR 2024 data used for the page)
- JAMA Oncology about page
- JAMA Oncology year in review, 2024
- Resurchify: JAMA Oncology
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 Oncology?
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
Compare alternatives
Supporting reads
Want the full picture on JAMA Oncology?
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.