Skip to main content
Journal Guides6 min readUpdated Oct 11, 2026

Nucleic Acids Research SJR and Scopus Metrics: What They Actually Mean

Nucleic Acids Research still has unusually strong specialist metrics, but the live submission question is whether the paper has durable utility and the right NAR-shaped identity.

By Manusights Editorial Team•
Editorial processThe Manusights editorial team researches and maintains these guides using source review, field-specific analysis, and our documented editorial process.How we work

Next step

Choose the next useful decision step first.

Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.

Open Journal Fit ChecklistPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.Run Free Readiness Scan

Quick answer: Nucleic Acids Research still has an unusually strong specialist Scopus profile.

Current Scopus-based sources place it at SJR 7.776, impact score 16.90, global rank 139, and h-index 675 in 2024. That confirms deep field authority. The hard submission question is not whether the journal is still strong. It is whether your paper has the durable utility, identity, and fit that NAR readers expect.

Direct answer

If your question is whether Nucleic Acids Research still sits high in the Scopus system, the answer is yes.

Metric
Current value
What it tells you
SJR
7.776
prestige-weighted influence remains very strong
Impact Score
16.90
citation density is exceptionally high in current Scopus data
Global rank
139
this is a top-system specialist journal
h-index
675
the archive is extraordinarily deep
Best quartile
Q1
the title remains firmly top-tier
Coverage history
1974-2025
this is decades of accumulated authority

That profile matters because NAR is not strong for one reason only. It earns citations through biology papers, methods papers, databases, and tools that keep being used.

Overview

The useful summary is that NAR behaves like a hybrid of prestige journal and field infrastructure journal. That is why authors misread it. It is not a generic glamour venue, but it is far more authoritative than many mixed-format journals.

What changed in 2024

The 2024 picture is a recovery year on both SJR and impact score.

  • SJR moved up from 7.048 in 2023 to 7.776 in 2024
  • impact score moved up from 15.17 to 16.90
  • global rank moved from 159 to 139

That matters because it shows the journal strengthened again after a softer 2023. For authors, that usually means the current archive is being used more often and by stronger journals than it was one year earlier.

Ten-year SJR and Scopus trend

Year
SJR
Impact Score
Global Rank
2024
7.776
16.90
139
2023
7.048
15.17
159
2022
8.234
14.16
107
2021
8.241
19.51
107
2020
9.008
15.85
96
2019
8.907
11.27
90
2018
8.636
11.07
103
2017
9.025
11.98
97
2016
7.883
10.54
129
2015
7.358
10.31
138
2014
6.640
9.95
175

The long-run picture is not simple decline. NAR strengthened from 2014 through the late 2010s, held high specialist authority into the early 2020s, softened a bit in 2023, and then recovered in 2024. That is a durable top-tier profile, not a one-cycle spike.

What the trend means in practice

For authors, the trend usually means:

  • the journal still has major field authority
  • the archive continues to reward work that remains useful
  • methods, tools, and database papers can carry real prestige here when they are exceptional
  • the key question is fit and utility, not whether the journal is strong enough

That is why the current numbers are useful. They help authors stop treating NAR as either a pure glamour journal or a catch-all tools venue. It is neither.

How NAR compares with realistic neighbors

Journal
2024 SJR
What the metric profile usually signals
Molecular Cell
9.051
elite mechanism-heavy biology specialist journal
Nucleic Acids Research
7.776
high-authority journal built on durable utility and nucleic-acid relevance
Nature Communications
4.761
broader OA journal with different audience logic
Scientific Reports
0.874
broad soundness-led journal with far softer prestige weighting

This is the useful comparison. NAR is not just strong because it is old or famous. It remains strong because papers there often keep being used years after publication.

What editors are really screening for

In practice, NAR is usually screening for:

  • clear article identity, especially for tools, databases, and methods
  • durable usefulness rather than only short-term interest
  • biological or methodological relevance tightly linked to nucleic-acid science
  • enough benchmarking, validation, or utility evidence to justify long-run reuse

That is why many papers that look exciting at submission still fail here. The journal's archive sets a hard standard for usefulness.

What we see in NAR Metric Questions

For NAR metric questions, three mistakes recur.

The prestige-only mistake. Authors sometimes treat NAR as a high-metric brand rather than a journal with a specific utility-and-fit logic.

The fuzzy-identity mistake. Another common miss is a paper that could be a biology paper, a methods paper, or a resource paper, but is not clearly one of them.

The under-benchmarked-tools mistake. We also see database or software manuscripts that are promising but not benchmarked or documented enough for NAR's long-run use standard.

That is the practical meaning of the current profile. NAR stays strong because its accepted papers keep paying off for readers.

What these metrics mean for authors

For authors, the current profile says:

  • publication here still carries major authority in genetics, genomics, and nucleic-acid biology
  • the archive is deep enough that utility matters as much as prestige
  • accepted papers are expected to be useful after publication, not just interesting at launch
  • if the manuscript really fits the journal, the upside is substantial

The h-index of 675 matters because it reflects one of the deepest reuse archives in this part of biology. A paper here enters a comparison set full of long-lived methods, databases, and biology papers.

Submit If / Think Twice If

Submit if:

  • the manuscript has a clear NAR-shaped identity
  • the work is likely to remain useful to the community
  • the biology, method, tool, or database is strongly benchmarked and documented
  • the paper speaks clearly to readers who work on nucleic acids or adjacent systems

Think twice if:

  • the article type is still conceptually fuzzy
  • the utility claim depends on future work rather than present evidence
  • the manuscript would fit a narrower specialty journal better
  • the submission logic is driven mostly by the journal's historical prestige

Readiness check

Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.

See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.

Get free manuscript previewPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.See example reports

What should drive the decision after the metrics check

The better question is whether the manuscript is truly an NAR paper in its current form.

That is why the next useful reads are:

If the work has real durable utility and a clear journal fit, the current metrics support the choice. If the paper's identity is still fuzzy, the metric profile is mostly warning you not to confuse authority with permissiveness. A NAR submission framing check is a direct way to pressure-test that before submission.

Practical verdict

Nucleic Acids Research still has a very strong Scopus profile and remains one of the clearest top-tier specialist destinations in this part of biology. The 2024 numbers are stronger than 2023 and reinforce that the journal's authority remains real.

For authors, the metric question is already answered. The live question is whether the paper has the right identity and utility for the room.

  1. Nucleic Acids Research JIF, Manusights.

Frequently asked questions

Nucleic Acids Research's 2024 SJR is 7.776 on current Scopus-based metric aggregators, which keeps it among the strongest journals in genetics and nucleic-acid biology.

Current Scopus-based sources place Nucleic Acids Research's 2024 impact score at 16.90, with a global rank of 139 and h-index of 675.

Because NAR publishes papers with durable community utility across nucleic-acid biology, genomics, tools, databases, and methods. Those papers keep getting reused and cited over time.

No. The real question is whether the manuscript has the utility, clarity, and journal fit that NAR readers will keep using after publication.

References

Sources

  1. 1. Nucleic Acids Research metrics page, Resurchify.
  2. 2. Nucleic Acids Research homepage, Oxford Academic.
  3. 3. Nucleic Acids Research author guidelines, Oxford Academic.

Before you upload

Choose the next useful decision step first.

Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.

Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.

Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.

Open Journal Fit ChecklistRun Free Readiness Scan

Put the guidance to work

Choose the practical next step for your research.

Start with the question in front of you, or use the guided learning path when you want a clearer view of the full publishing process.

Find my next step Choose a research stage or a specific kind of help.Learn in Academy Follow a guided path through the publishing process.
Internal navigation

Where to go next

Start here

Same journal, next question

Supporting reads

Conversion step

Back to all articles