TEM Impact Factor

The first useful signal is that TEM is not just a respectable review journal. It is operating near the top of its field, which is what you would expect from a curated Trends title with relatively low article volume and strong editorial filtering.

The second signal is durability. The five-year JIF of 12.5 is almost identical to the current JIF, and the cited half-life is 7.9 years. That usually means the journal's stronger pieces remain useful as conceptual anchors rather than fading after one fast citation cycle.

The third signal is cleanliness. The JIF without self-cites is 12.5, essentially unchanged from the headline JIF. That makes the citation profile look robust.

The SJR of 3.485 and h-index of 191 matter too. They tell you TEM is not just a polished editorial brand. It has deep field penetration and long-run citation durability.

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.

Directionally, the open citation signal is up from 8.88 in 2023 to 10.77 in 2024. That is a meaningful year-over-year rise after several flatter years.

For authors, the larger point is that TEM is not coasting on old prestige. The journal is still attracting strong citation performance while staying tightly curated.

The common mistake is to see a strong impact factor and assume TEM is just a high-end place to send a good review or a strong data paper.

That is not how the journal works. TEM is a review-led Trends title. Reviews are invited from leading researchers, and much of the journal revolves around Reviews, Opinions, Forum pieces, Spotlights, and related editorial formats.

That changes the practical meaning of the metric.

In this case, the number tells you:

• the journal has prestige and reach
• the journal's articles are highly cited
• the journal shapes conversation in endocrinology and metabolism

But it does not tell you that your manuscript is structurally the right kind of article for the journal.

In our pre-submission review work on ideas targeting TEM, the repeat problem is not lack of topic quality. It is wrong article shape.

We see authors treat the journal like a normal review outlet when the editors are actually curating a very specific kind of conceptual, timely, forward-looking contribution. The official journal materials actually make that clear, but many authors miss it until late.

Editors explicitly favor article ideas that feel timely, interpretive, and thesis-led rather than merely comprehensive. That distinction is easy to underestimate and is one reason descriptive review concepts often miss here.

In our pre-submission review work on ideas targeting Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, four failure patterns recur.

The idea is informative but not directional enough. The draft knows the literature but does not yet tell the reader how the field is changing.

The format is wrong. Some ideas should be Opinions or Forum pieces rather than full Reviews, and the wrong format weakens the concept immediately.

The endocrine or metabolic angle is diluted. Adjacent immunology, cancer-metabolism, or cell-biology ideas still need a strong endocrine or metabolic owner case.

The author is still holding a primary-research manuscript. The journal is not a normal destination for that type of paper, no matter how strong the metric looks.

If that sounds familiar, a TEM article-type and fit check is usually more useful than spending another week expanding the draft.

The impact factor does not tell you whether the article type is right, whether the idea is timely enough, or whether the concept is directional enough for a Trends slot.

That is where most mismatches happen. The metric places the journal. It does not make the article more Trends-like.