Journal Metrics Analysis

Impact Factors 2026: What Changed Across 19,208 Journals

The JCR 2026 edition was released June 17, 2026 and uses 2025 citation data. We matched its exact journal values with the JCR 2025 edition's 2024 metric to show what moved—and how much.

MZ
Dr. Meng Zhao|Physician-Scientist · Founder, LabCat AI
Published: June 2026Updated: June 23, 202618 min readJournal Metrics Analysis

The impact factors 2026 release moved upward for most journals in the comparable sample. Of 19,208 titles with exact values in both releases, 11,842 (61.7%) increased, 4,884 (25.4%) decreased, and 2,482 (12.9%) were unchanged.

The median rose from 1.8 to 1.9, while the arithmetic mean rose from 2.65 to 2.96. That gap matters: a small number of exceptional values pull the mean upward, so the median is the clearer description of the typical journal.

Comparable journals

19,208

Exact values in both releases

Moved upward

61.7%

11,842 journals

Median impact factor

1.81.9

Typical change +0.2

Arithmetic mean

2.652.96

Sensitive to high outliers

What “impact factors 2026” means here

Readers commonly use “impact factors 2026” for the values published in the 2026 JCR edition. Formally, those are 2025 Journal Impact Factors because they use 2025 citation data. Throughout this analysis, the newest impact factor, released June 17, 2026 and based on 2025 citation data, is compared with the prior exact value. That previous value comes from the JCR 2025 edition and carries metric year 2024. The charts compare those two consecutive releases—not two different calculations from 2026.

Impact factors 2026: did most journals rise?

Yes. More than three in five comparable journals increased, while about one in four declined. The result describes the direction of the release as a whole; it does not mean every field moved equally.

Direction of change among journals with exact numeric values in both releases. Counts and percentages are repeated below.
Direction of year-over-year impact factor change
DirectionJournalsShare
Increased11,84261.7%
Decreased4,88425.4%
Unchanged2,48212.9%

The average rose, but the typical change was modest

The median journal gained +0.2 points. That is a more restrained story than the mean increase of +0.3. Impact factors form a strongly right-skewed distribution: most titles sit in the lower single digits, while a few exceptional journals reach far higher values.

Distribution of absolute point changes. Zero has its own bin; extreme gains and declines are retained in the two outer bins.
View distribution data
Impact factor point-change distribution
ChangeJournalsShare
≤ −2.01370.7%
−1.9 to −1.02791.5%
−0.9 to −0.58184.3%
−0.4 to −0.13,65019.0%
02,48212.9%
+0.1 to +0.46,76835.2%
+0.5 to +0.93,04515.9%
+1.0 to +1.91,4307.4%
≥ +2.05993.1%

How the highest-impact journals changed

Ranking by the newest exact value puts one journal far outside the rest of the distribution. We show it separately so the common axis remains readable. The chart then displays the next eleven highest values, including both increases and declines.

Highest current value · shown separately

CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS

Previous 232.4 → newest 685.2

+452.8

+194.8%

Previous releaseNewest release
Highest current impact factors after the separately displayed outlier. “Highest” describes the metric only; it is not a judgment of manuscript fit, editorial quality, or likely article citations.
Highest current impact factors compared with the previous release
JournalPreviousNewestChangePercent
NATURE REVIEWS MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY90.2118.0+27.830.8%
LANCET88.5109.0+20.523.2%
NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY103.3104.6+1.31.3%
MMWR Surveillance Summaries49.896.9+47.194.6%
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology82.294.6+12.415.1%
NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY101.891.2−10.6-10.4%
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE78.584.5+6.07.6%
Nature Reviews Materials86.283.3−2.9-3.4%
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy52.781.2+28.554.1%
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY65.480.4+15.022.9%
Nature Reviews Disease Primers60.679.8+19.231.7%

The largest increases and decreases

These lists rank absolute point change, not percentage change. That choice prevents a tiny starting value from turning a small point gain into a sensational percentage headline. The largest gain and decline are again separated so readers can see the remaining journals clearly.

Largest point increase

CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS

Previous 232.4 → newest 685.2

+452.8

+194.8%

Largest point decrease

Kidney International Supplements

Previous 89.6 → newest 8.3

−81.3

−90.7%

Next-largest gainsNext-largest declines
One release-to-release movement is not a long-term trend. Review-heavy, specialist, and lower-volume journals can be especially volatile when a small number of highly cited papers enter or leave the citation window.
Largest increases after the extreme outlier
JournalPreviousNewestChangePercent
MMWR Surveillance Summaries49.896.9+47.194.6%
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy52.781.2+28.554.1%
NATURE REVIEWS MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY90.2118.0+27.830.8%
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior31.155.9+24.879.7%
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education16.738.7+22.0131.7%
LANCET88.5109.0+20.523.2%
Nature Reviews Disease Primers60.679.8+19.231.7%
Largest decreases after the extreme outlier
JournalPreviousNewestChangePercent
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Computational Molecular Science27.010.9−16.1-59.6%
NATURE REVIEWS IMMUNOLOGY60.947.1−13.8-22.7%
Qualitative Psychology14.32.5−11.8-82.5%
NEW ASTRONOMY REVIEWS26.815.2−11.6-43.3%
NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY101.891.2−10.6-10.4%
ENDOCRINE PATHOLOGY14.74.6−10.1-68.7%
Computational Visual Media18.38.3−10.0-54.6%

Two widely searched journals

PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports illustrate two different sizes of upward movement near the center of the distribution. Their values come from the same canonical comparison as every chart above.

What these changes do—and do not—mean

A higher impact factor says that citations to a journal's recent content increased relative to its citable output. It does not tell you why that happened, whether your manuscript belongs there, or how often your eventual article will be cited.

  • Compare journals within the same subject category before comparing raw values across fields.
  • Use the field-normalized Journal Citation Indicator when you need cross-field context.
  • Check current quartile, scope, readership, indexing, fees, and author instructions.
  • Inspect several years of values before treating one annual movement as a trend.
  • Choose for audience and manuscript fit first; use impact factor as supporting evidence.

Methodology and limitations

Source and inclusion

We analyzed the canonical Journal Metrics artifact for the release dated June 17, 2026. A journal enters the comparison only when it has exact numeric values for metric years 2025 and 2024.

Exclusions

We excluded threshold values such as <0.1, unavailable values, new journals without a prior exact value, and archived records. We never converted those labels into invented numbers.

Calculations

Absolute change is newest minus previous. Percentage change is absolute change divided by the previous value. The mean is the arithmetic average; the median is the middle observation after sorting.

Interpretive limits

This is a descriptive two-release comparison across disciplines. It cannot identify causes, replace field-normalized analysis, or predict the influence of an individual paper.

Further reading

MZ

Written by Dr. Meng Zhao

Physician-Scientist · Founder, LabCat AI

MD · Former Neurosurgeon · Medical AI Researcher

Dr. Meng Zhao is a former neurosurgeon turned medical-AI researcher. After years in the operating room, he moved into applied AI for clinical workflows and now leads LabCat AI, a medical-AI company working on decision support and research tooling for clinicians. He built Journal Metrics as a free resource for researchers who need reliable journal metrics without paid database subscriptions.

Related Articles