Physical Review B SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell Authors
Physical Review B's profile looks modest only if you compare it to the wrong fields. Inside condensed matter physics, it still reads as a core journal.
Research Scientist, Physics & Materials Systems
Author context
Works across physics and materials systems, with expertise in navigating APS, AIP, and Elsevier journal submissions.
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.
Quick answer: Physical Review B has a strong Scopus profile in its actual field context. Current Scopus-linked browser data places the journal around an SJR of 1.303, a CiteScore of 6.2, and Q1 standing in condensed matter physics. That confirms real field authority, but the submission decision still depends more on whether the manuscript belongs in a full-length condensed-matter journal than on the metrics alone.
The core metric picture
Metric | Current read | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
SJR | ~1.303 | Prestige-weighted influence is strong in condensed matter physics |
CiteScore | ~6.2 | Four-year citation performance is solid in physics context |
Quartile | Q1 | The journal remains top-tier in its core category |
Category rank | 100 / 443 in one condensed-matter browser view | The journal remains highly placed in a large field |
JCR context | Impact factor 3.7 | Normal physics citation levels still support a strong field journal |
The useful reading is that Physical Review B should be judged inside condensed matter physics, not against biomedicine or general-science vanity numbers.
What the metrics actually help with
They help answer the right field question:
- is PRB still a core journal in condensed matter physics?
- does the field still cite it as a serious full-length venue?
- is it stronger than outsiders assume from the raw number alone?
The answer is yes. The profile fits exactly what physicists already know: PRB remains one of the field's working anchor journals.
What the metrics do not answer
They do not tell you:
- whether the paper should be a PRL-style letter instead
- whether the result is broad enough across physics
- whether the manuscript benefits from full-length technical treatment
- whether another physics venue is the truer editorial match
Those are still the real submission questions.
Why the profile matters for authors
At this SJR level, Physical Review B is buying authors:
- real authority inside condensed matter and materials physics
- a respected full-length format
- a journal where detailed derivation, characterization, and method still matter
- stable field signal without requiring broad-significance theater
That is why PRB gets misread by outsiders. It is not supposed to look like a general-science glamour journal. Its value is that condensed matter physicists actually use it.
What should drive the submission decision instead
The better question is whether the manuscript is truly a Physical Review B paper.
That is why the better next reads are:
- Is Physical Review B a good journal?
- Physical Review B submission guide
- Physical Review B submission process
- Physical Review B impact factor
If the work needs full space and primarily matters to condensed matter or materials physicists, the metrics support the choice. If the paper is really aiming for broader-significance compression, the same metrics are telling you PRB is a different editorial product.
Practical verdict
Physical Review B has a strong Scopus-style profile in context and remains a serious condensed-matter journal. That makes it the honest target for many rigorous full-length physics papers.
But the useful takeaway is still fit, not raw number anxiety. If the paper belongs in a letters-first or broader venue, the metrics do not decide that for you. A free Manusights scan is the fastest way to pressure-test that before submission.
- Physical Review B submission guide, Manusights.
- Is Physical Review B a good journal?, Manusights.
Sources
- 1. Physical Review B journal browser entry, Vrije Universiteit.
- 2. Physical Review B about page, APS.
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: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
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.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
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.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.