Pharmacology & Therapeutics Impact Factor

Several journals use similar pharmacology and therapeutics names. The extra word can identify a different journal, publisher and citation record. Matching only an abbreviation or a truncated title is insufficient.

This table prevents an identity error. It does not rank these journals against one another or recommend them as interchangeable submission targets. Read the relevant scope and article-type rules before deciding whether any is an appropriate comparator.

The metric records also need to stay separate. The 2025 JCR snapshot used here provides the following comparison; an unverified cell must not inherit a neighboring journal's number.

Source: Clarivate JCR, 2025 records for the two matched titles. A missing value for the Archives title is a limit of this comparison, not a claim about its indexing or whether another source contains a metric.

For a library record, institutional form or internal shortlist, save both ISSNs if available. A publisher URL and the full title make later verification easier than a bare number pasted into a spreadsheet. If the title and ISSN disagree, hold the comparison until the record is corrected.

JIF summarizes citations at journal level using its defined publication and citation windows. It does not mean that a new review will receive 13.5 citations. Individual papers have different readerships and citation histories, and journal-level averages cannot establish the scientific quality of a particular contribution.

The five-year JIF and current JIF describe different windows. A value of 16.2 alongside 13.5 is useful context, but the difference alone does not prove that the journal is improving, declining or retaining every article's influence for longer. A trend claim requires comparable annual observations.

Likewise, a JCI of 1.66 is not another way of writing the JIF. Do not subtract it from 13.5, average the two, or compare one journal's JCI with another's JIF. Different indicators answer different questions and need their own definitions.

The same caution applies to CiteScore. The current publisher display gives 28.3, but it is not a replacement value for the JIF field. A larger number from another metric does not demonstrate a larger improvement. The journal metrics guide explains the separate measures.

In our pre-submission worksheet, citation metrics are recorded only after journal identity and article type are established. This is an editorial decision aid, not a report of an observed customer cohort. Use one row per candidate and keep missing values visibly missing.

Worked decision: A researcher writes “13.5 versus 28.3” in a journal-selection memo and concludes that the second option has more than twice the impact. In this fictional example, both numbers were copied from the same Pharmacology & Therapeutics page: the first is JIF and the second is CiteScore.

The correct repair is to relabel the records, then obtain a matching indicator and data year for the other journal. Do not calculate a percentage advantage from the mixed metrics. If the other record remains unavailable, mark the quantitative comparison unresolved while assessing scope separately.

Now suppose the colleague also copied a Q1 label from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. Even if both journals happen to share a quartile, that does not fix the record. The evidence still belongs to a different title. Verify the journal identity first, then the category and year.

The practical result is a smaller, defensible memo: which exact journal was measured, which metric was used, where the number came from, and what decision remains open. It may contain fewer numbers than the original spreadsheet, but each retained number has a clear meaning.

The official proposal guidance dated September 7, 2026 states that the journal publishes invited reviews but considers proposals submitted in its required form to the Editorial Office. Other routes and proposals without the completed template are not considered.

That is a narrower opportunity than unrestricted submission, but broader than an absolute “no proposals” rule. The guide for authors describes reviews centered on pharmacology, drug actions and drug targets. The impact factor does not substitute for that fit.

Use three distinct statuses in your shortlist: proposal route identified, proposal submitted, and invitation received. These are not equivalent. Until an invitation or editorial direction is received, do not describe the journal as a confirmed destination for your completed review.

For example, a broad review of disease mechanisms may need a clearer pharmacological question before a proposal is useful. A review that critically evaluates evidence for a therapeutic target has a different starting point. This is our scope-reading judgment; only the editors decide whether a proposal merits an invitation.

A review-journal access and fit check can help test the manuscript's framing. It cannot obtain an invitation or certify the journal's decision. Follow the publisher's current form and instructions for the actual proposal route.