RSC Advances Impact Factor

Among Chemistry, Multidisciplinary journals, RSC Advances ranks in the top 31% by impact factor (JCR 2024). This ranking is based on our analysis of 20,449 journals in the Clarivate JCR 2024 database.

The impact factor tells you that the average RSC Advances paper is cited at a moderate rate. The five-year JIF (4.3) being slightly below the two-year (4.6) suggests that papers do not accumulate additional citations over time as strongly as papers in more selective journals. This is typical for high-volume journals where the citation distribution is broad: some papers are well-cited while many receive modest attention.

The 208,852 total cites figure is notable. It is one of the highest in all of chemistry, reflecting the sheer volume of published work. RSC Advances publishes over 3,000 papers per year, which makes it one of the largest chemistry journals in the world. That volume means the journal has a very wide footprint even if individual papers vary in impact.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting RSC Advances, three failure patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections despite the journal's more accessible threshold. Each is grounded in the journal's own published criteria.

Molecular docking without experimental validation. RSC Advances' author guidelines state explicitly: "Molecular docking studies require physical or experimental validation." This is not a general preference, it is a documented requirement. Computational docking manuscripts submitted without a corresponding experimental component (binding assays, crystallographic confirmation, or equivalent) are rejected without external review. This is the single most commonly cited reason for desk rejection in computational chemistry submissions to RSC Advances, and it is entirely preventable.

Purely computational studies without chemistry relevance or synthetic feasibility discussion. The guidelines further state: "Purely computational studies of uncharacterized materials must justify their chemistry relevance and discuss synthetic feasibility." A paper that models a hypothetical material without addressing whether that material can be synthesized or has a plausible chemistry application fails this bar. RSC Advances is a chemistry journal, not a computational physics journal; purely theoretical or computational submissions must make the connection to real chemistry explicit.

Insufficient characterization data for the claimed contribution. RSC Advances accepts incremental work that other RSC journals would decline, but it still requires complete characterization. Papers presenting novel compounds, materials, or reactions without adequate spectroscopic, analytical, or structural data are rejected on methodology grounds. The journal's position as an accessible RSC venue does not mean the characterization standard is relaxed, it means the novelty bar is lower. Authors who confuse the two submit papers that are well-positioned topically but fail on evidence quality.

A RSC Advances submission readiness check can verify that the computational work has experimental grounding, the characterization package is complete, and the chemistry relevance argument is explicit before submission.

Last verified: March 2026 against Clarivate JCR 2024 data.

The steady upward trend from 3.1 in 2020 to 4.6 in 2024 is notable. RSC Advances has been climbing in citation performance, possibly reflecting editorial tightening or improving content quality. The current 4.6 is the highest in the journal's recent history.

RSC Advances serves as the broad-scope, open-access tier within the Royal Society of Chemistry's journal family. Papers that are strong but not quite selective enough for Chemical Science (JIF 7.4), Chemical Communications, or the specialty RSC journals often find a home here. The RSC portfolio works as a tiered system:

• Chemical Society Reviews (IF 39.0): invited reviews, very high selectivity
• Chemical Science (IF 7.4): RSC's top broad-scope research journal
• Chemical Communications (IF 4.2): short-format communications
• RSC Advances (IF 4.6): broad-scope, open-access, moderate selectivity
• Specialty journals (e.g., Green Chemistry, Catalysis Science & Technology): field-specific RSC titles

RSC Advances' APC is lower than many competitors, and the RSC brand carries recognition even at the Q2 level. For chemistry research that is technically sound but does not reach the selectivity bar of Chemical Science, RSC Advances provides a legitimate publication option.

RSC Advances editors evaluate papers primarily on technical soundness and chemistry relevance. The bar is more accessible than Chemical Science or the specialty RSC journals:

• Work must be technically correct and reproducible
• The chemistry must be relevant to the broad chemistry community
• The paper should present original results with adequate characterization
• The contribution does not need to be conceptually novel, but it must advance knowledge

What usually gets rejected: papers with insufficient characterization, work that does not meet basic standards of chemical rigor, and manuscripts outside the journal's chemistry scope.

Submit if:

• you want a credible, indexed, open-access venue for solid chemistry work
• the paper is technically sound but may not reach the bar for Chemical Science or top specialty journals
• RSC brand recognition matters for your field or institution
• you need a journal with reasonable review timelines and predictable publishing
• the APC budget is a consideration (RSC Advances has a competitive APC)

Think twice if:

• Chemical Science or a specialty RSC journal is a realistic target
• an ACS journal (Journal of the American Chemical Society, ACS Catalysis, etc.) would give stronger branding
• the work has enough novelty for a more selective venue
• the paper is really more applied engineering than chemistry

• Whether the paper would be better placed in a specialty RSC journal
• How the APC compares to alternative open-access options
• Whether the high volume affects discoverability for your specific paper
• How hiring committees in your field weight RSC Advances publications
• How long the review process will take

For RSC Advances, the core submission question is usually about tier and audience rather than about the metric itself. Authors use the page best when they ask whether the paper is well-served by a broad chemistry journal with moderate selectivity and RSC branding, or whether it should move up to a more selective chemistry title or sideways to a narrower specialty journal.

That is why the impact factor matters only as context. A 4.6 JIF tells you the journal is credible and established, but it does not turn the venue into the right home for every chemistry paper. The page should help authors read RSC Advances as a strategic fit decision, not a shortcut around editorial standards elsewhere.

• It helps when the manuscript is solid chemistry that needs a reputable open-access home without forcing a top-tier selectivity story.
• It helps when you are choosing within the RSC portfolio or against other broad-access chemistry journals.
• It misleads when the paper has enough novelty or field urgency for a more selective target.
• It misleads when authors use the metric to avoid deciding whether a specialty journal would reach the real audience better.

• RSC Advances submission guide
• RSC Advances submission process
• Is RSC Advances a good journal?