Journal of Power Sources Impact Factor

• Submission portal: Journal of Power Sources Editorial Manager.
• Open-access APC: Elsevier-facing sources currently list about USD 4,150 excluding taxes, while the Journal Metrics snapshot lists $4,110 USD. Use Elsevier's submission workflow for the final charge because institutional agreements can change the amount paid.
• Representative Journal of Power Sources DOI examples: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.11.048, 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.02.065, 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.10.060, and 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2025.238509.
• Current article-volume context: Journal Metrics lists 7,846 papers across the last five recorded years, which is why article fit has to be judged at the device-evidence level rather than by the average citation number alone.

Evidence basis: this page was updated from publisher journal pages, Journal Citation Reports-release metric records, Scopus/SCImago-style metric records, peer-journal metric pages, and Manusights pre-submission review patterns.

Source limitation: Elsevier, Journal Metrics, and Scopus-style records can confirm the 8.4 JIF, Q1 categories, ISSNs, and APC context. Official guidance and directory records still leave authors needing a power-sources fit guide for Journal of Power Sources versus Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Advanced Energy Materials, or a materials-only journal. Manusights pre-submission reviews for Journal of Power Sources-bound manuscripts show a specific failure pattern: authors can pitch an electrode, electrolyte, or catalyst result as a power-source paper while half-cell-only data, single-rate cycling, or thin degradation evidence leaves the device claim under-supported.

The 8.4 impact factor tells you Journal of Power Sources remains a strong Q1 venue inside electrochemistry and energy research. It does not tell you that every energy-materials manuscript belongs there. The page should answer a narrower author question: does this paper behave like a power-source paper, or is it really a materials, catalysis, or broader energy-systems paper?

The most useful read is the match between metric and manuscript shape:

• A lithium, sodium, zinc, metal-air, or solid-state battery paper can fit well if the cell-level evidence supports the materials claim.
• A fuel-cell or electrolyzer paper can fit well if polarization, impedance, durability, and operating-condition data are not treated as side figures.
• A supercapacitor paper can fit well if rate, cycling, energy-density, and power-density evidence are measured across the range the application needs.
• A synthesis-only or morphology-only paper may be better served by Journal of Materials Chemistry A, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, or a catalysis/materials journal.

The two-year JIF and five-year JIF both sitting at 8.4 is also useful. It suggests the journal is not getting a short-lived citation spike only from fashionable battery terms; papers continue to be cited beyond the first two-year window.

Source: current Journal Metrics record plus prior Manusights Journal Citation Reports ledger values; older rounded rows are trend context, not a substitute for a licensed Journal Citation Reports export.

The short version: Journal of Power Sources is up from 7.9 to 8.4 in the newest release. The better interpretation is stability in the high single digits, with a 2021 high during the broader battery and energy-storage citation surge. Do not read the current number as a sudden repositioning of the journal; read it as continued Q1 visibility in a fast-moving energy field.

Source: Journal Metrics, Journal Searches, and SCImago-style records checked June 30, 2026.

This is why Journal of Power Sources can be both selective and high volume. It publishes many papers, but the acceptable center of gravity is still electrochemical power-source performance. A manuscript outside that center can look strong by materials standards and still feel wrong for this venue.

The 8.4 JIF cannot tell you whether your test conditions match the device claim. It cannot tell you whether the paper's best cycle-life plot is cherry-picked, whether the impedance result explains the degradation mechanism, or whether the full-cell result is strong enough to support the title.

It also does not settle the boundary with neighboring journals:

Use Journal of Power Sources when the reader needs electrochemical power-source evidence, not just a high energy-journal badge.

Across our Journal of Power Sources pre-submission reviews, the manuscripts that need the most repair are rarely weak because the impact factor was misunderstood. They are weak because the paper asks Journal of Power Sources to accept a materials claim before the power-source evidence has earned it.

These are specific failure patterns from Manusights review data, not official Journal of Power Sources rejection statistics. Editors specifically look for whether the manuscript's evidence supports the power-source claim, not only whether the topic belongs somewhere in energy materials.

Pattern 1: Abstract promises device performance

We see Journal of Power Sources battery and supercapacitor submissions where the title claims practical energy storage, yet the main figures stop at SEM, XRD, surface area, and a narrow electrochemical result. For this journal, the abstract, Figure 1, and conclusion need to make the device or component performance measurable. If the performance claim appears only after a materials story is already complete, the manuscript reads like a materials paper with a power-source appendix.

Pattern 2: Battery claim rests on half-cell data

Journal of Power Sources half-cell testing is useful, but it can hide practical voltage, balance, and capacity limits. In our review work, the fix is often not a sentence. It is a figure-plan change: full-cell curves, realistic loading, rate performance, cycling stability, and a comparison table that uses the same units and conditions as the cited state of the art.

Pattern 3: Rate story uses the easiest operating point

We see Journal of Power Sources manuscripts with strong capacity at a gentle current density, then thin evidence at the current density the application actually requires. Journal of Power Sources readers will notice that mismatch. The methods, figure captions, and Results section should state the current range, loading, electrolyte, temperature, cycle count, and retention logic without making the reader reconstruct the test from supplementary tables.

Pattern 4: Mechanism explains the material, not the power source

A Journal of Power Sources mechanism that stops at morphology or composition is often not enough. The paper should connect the mechanism to charge transfer, ion transport, interfacial stability, polarization, impedance, thermal behavior, or degradation. The stronger manuscripts explain why the power source performs differently, not only why the material looks different.

That is the Manusights reason for this page: the impact factor tells you Journal of Power Sources is worth considering, but the submission decision turns on whether the evidence package behaves like a power-source paper.