Science Immunology Impact Factor
Science impact factor is 45.8. See the current rank, quartile, and what the number actually means before you submit.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Journal evaluation
Want the full picture on Science?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether Science is realistic.
A fuller snapshot for authors
Use Science's impact factor as one signal, then stack it against selectivity, editorial speed, and the journal guide before you decide where to submit.
What this metric helps you decide
- Whether Science has the citation profile you want for this paper.
- How the journal compares to nearby options when prestige or visibility matters.
- Whether the citation upside is worth the likely selectivity and process tradeoffs.
What you still need besides JIF
- Scope fit and article-type fit, which matter more than a high number.
- Desk-rejection risk, which impact factor does not predict.
- Timeline and cost context.
How authors actually use Science's impact factor
Use the number to place the journal in the right tier, then check the harder filters: scope fit, selectivity, and editorial speed.
Use this page to answer
- Is Science actually above your next-best alternatives, or just more famous?
- Does the prestige upside justify the likely cost, delay, and selectivity?
- Should this journal stay on the shortlist before you invest in submission prep?
Check next
- Acceptance rate: <7%. High JIF does not tell you how hard triage will be.
- First decision: ~14 days to first decision. Timeline matters if you are under a grant, job, or revision clock.
- Publishing cost and article type, since those constraints can override prestige.
Quick answer: Science Immunology has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 16.3, a five-year JIF of 17.7, and a Q1 rank of 6/183 in Immunology. The practical read is that this is a top-tier immunology journal with a Science-family screen for breadth, mechanism, and consequence, not just technical competence.
Science Immunology impact factor at a glance
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor | 16.3 |
5-Year JIF | 17.7 |
JCI | 3.81 |
Quartile | Q1 |
Category Rank | 6/183 |
Total Cites | 13,743 |
Citable Items | 131 |
Cited Half-Life | 3.7 years |
Scopus Impact Score 2024 | 13.14 |
SJR 2024 | 8.22 |
h-index | 123 |
Publisher | AAAS |
ISSN | 2470-9468 |
That places Science Immunology in roughly the top 3% of its JCR category by current rank.
What 16.3 actually tells you
The headline number is high, but the more useful signal is the full profile. A 16.3 JIF, 17.7 five-year JIF, and 3.81 JCI together tell you the journal is not living on brand alone. Its papers are performing strongly even after field normalization.
This also fits the journal's editorial identity. AAAS describes Science Immunology as a monthly, online-only, peer-reviewed journal designed to advance understanding of the immune system by showcasing innovative advances from studies in all organisms and model systems, including humans.
That is a broad mandate, but not a permissive one. The number reflects a journal that expects work to travel beyond one immunology niche.
Science Immunology impact factor trend
The JCR row above is the authoritative impact factor on this page. For the longer directional view, the table below uses the open Scopus-based impact score series as a trend proxy.
Year | Scopus impact score |
|---|---|
2016 | 0.00 |
2017 | 5.95 |
2018 | 8.16 |
2019 | 9.03 |
2020 | 11.03 |
2021 | 22.48 |
2022 | 19.83 |
2023 | 14.04 |
2024 | 13.14 |
Directionally, the open citation signal is down from 14.04 in 2023 to 13.14 in 2024, and well below the 2021 peak. That is not surprising. Science Immunology benefited from a stronger citation cycle when immunology broadly, and infection and inflammation research in particular, were receiving exceptional attention.
The better interpretation is that the journal normalized while still remaining elite. The current JCR row and category rank say it is still firmly in the top immunology tier.
Why the number can mislead authors
The mistake is to read a Science-family immunology journal as if it were simply a better-branded specialist venue.
That is usually where authors get into trouble. Science Immunology tends to reward papers with:
- clear broad immunology consequence
- mechanism that feels decisive, not just suggestive
- importance visible outside one technical subcommunity
- a manuscript that reads like an event for immunologists, not only for specialists
A strong paper can still be too incremental for this level.
How Science Immunology compares with nearby choices
Journal | Best fit | When it beats Science Immunology | When Science Immunology is stronger |
|---|---|---|---|
Science Immunology | Broad immunology advances with strong consequence | When the paper has field-wide value and deserves a high-end general immunology screen | When the story travels beyond one niche but is still more immunology-specific than general-science |
Immunity | High-end mechanistic immunology | When the paper is a better Cell Press-style mechanistic fit | When the work feels more like a broad immunology advance in the AAAS lane |
Nature Immunology | Top-end immunology with flagship consequence | When the paper is even broader or sharper at the very top end | When the Science Immunology editorial fit is cleaner |
Journal of Experimental Medicine | High-trust mechanistic and disease immunology | When the paper is stronger as a disease-mechanism story than a flagship broad immunology event | When the result has broader immunology consequence across subfields |
That is why a manuscript can be excellent and still be below Science Immunology's threshold. The issue is usually breadth of consequence, not competence.
In our pre-submission review work
In our pre-submission review work on manuscripts targeting Science Immunology, the most common failure is overframing. The data are good, sometimes very good, but the manuscript is written as if one technically strong result automatically becomes a high-end broad immunology paper.
Editors usually test that claim immediately.
What pre-submission reviews reveal about Science Immunology submissions
In our pre-submission review work on manuscripts targeting Science Immunology, four failure patterns recur.
The advance is real but too narrow. This is common with beautifully executed work whose importance is obvious mainly to one specialist readership.
Phenotyping outruns mechanism. The biology looks interesting, but the manuscript does not yet explain enough about why the immune phenomenon happens.
The significance claim is broader than the evidence. Authors often write the paper as a field-wide advance before the data actually support that reach.
The story is technically strong but not conceptually clean enough. Science Immunology usually rewards papers where the central immunology message is simple, sharp, and hard to miss.
If that sounds familiar, a Science Immunology submission readiness check is usually more useful than another line-edit pass.
How to use this number in journal selection
Use the impact factor to place Science Immunology correctly. It is a top-tier immunology target, and the JCI confirms it is performing at that level.
But do not let the number make the decision for you. The better question is whether the manuscript changes how a broad immunology readership thinks, not whether it is just the best version of a niche story.
What the number does not tell you
The impact factor does not tell you whether the paper is broad enough, conceptually sharp enough, or mechanistically closed enough for a Science-family editorial screen. It also does not tell you whether a different high-end immunology journal would be the more honest first target.
That is where many good papers miss. The metric can place the journal. It cannot certify that the manuscript is operating at the journal's level.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit if:
- the paper has broad immunology consequence
- the mechanism is strong enough to support the scale of the claim
- the importance is visible outside one narrow subcommunity
- the manuscript reads like a clear conceptual advance
Think twice if:
- the result is mainly niche-specific
- phenotyping is strong but mechanistic closure is thin
- the title and framing overstate the field-wide consequence
- another high-end immunology journal would fit the story more honestly
Bottom line
Science Immunology has an impact factor of 16.3 and a five-year JIF of 17.7. The stronger signal is its combination of elite rank, high normalized influence, and a Science-family filter for broad immunology consequence.
If the paper is not clearly bigger than a specialist story, the metric will flatter the fit.
Frequently asked questions
Science Immunology has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 16.3, with a five-year JIF of 17.7. It is Q1 and ranks 6th out of 183 journals in Immunology.
Yes. It sits in the top tier of immunology publishing. The stronger signal is the combination of a 16.3 JIF, high JCI of 3.81, and a Science-family editorial bar for broad immunology consequence.
The open Scopus-based impact score peaked during a stronger citation cycle and then normalized. The current JCR row still places the journal comfortably in the top immunology tier.
No. The journal still expects broad immunology consequence, clear mechanism, and importance beyond one narrow subcommunity. Strong specialist work can still be the wrong fit.
The common misses are incremental immunology framed as a flagship advance, phenotyping without enough mechanistic closure, and papers whose importance is legible only inside one technical niche.
Sources
- Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR 2024 data used for the page)
- AAAS launch note for Science Immunology
- AAAS 2026 Science media kit
- Science Immunology journal homepage
- Resurchify: Science Immunology (used for the Scopus impact-score trend and SJR context)
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: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how journals compare, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Checklist system / operational asset
Elite Submission Checklist
A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.
Flagship report / decision support
Desk Rejection Report
A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.
Dataset / reference hub
Journal Intelligence Dataset
A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.
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.
Before you upload
Want the full picture on Science?
Scope, selectivity, what editors want, common rejection reasons, and submission context, all in one place.
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Same journal, next question
Compare alternatives
Supporting reads
Want the full picture on Science?
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.