Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A researcher deciding between submitting to JAMA Network Open versus the flagship JAMA checking each journal's own separately reported JIF directly on jamanetwork.com rather than assuming one figure applies to both, since they are different journals with different JCR entries.
- Is an instance
A librarian using the standard JIF calculation (citations in the JCR data year to the journal's citable items from the two prior years, divided by that item count) to explain how JAMA Network Open's publisher-stated 11.7 figure was derived, the same mechanical formula Clarivate applies to every JCR-indexed title.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
Citing 'JAMA's impact factor' in a CV or grant application when the article being referenced was actually published in JAMA Network Open -- the two are separate JCR-indexed journals with separate JIFs, and conflating them is a common, avoidable sourcing error given the shared 'JAMA' branding.
- Not an instance
Quoting a third-party JCR-tracking aggregator's or Wikipedia's figure for JAMA Network Open's Impact Factor instead of checking the publisher's own journal page directly -- aggregators update on their own schedules and can lag or diverge from what the publisher currently states.
- Not an instance
Treating JAMA Network Open's CiteScore (a separate Elsevier/Scopus metric using a four-year citation window) as if it were the same figure as its Clarivate JIF -- different organizations, different windows, different denominators.
Editorial commentary
JAMA Network Open’s Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a specific, illustrative instance of the general Journal Impact Factor metric published annually by Clarivate in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). It is its own, separately computed JCR entry — distinct from the flagship JAMA journal’s JIF, even though both are published by the American Medical Association (AMA) under the JAMA Network umbrella. The two figures should never be quoted interchangeably; a citation, CV, or grant narrative that says “JAMA’s impact factor” when the underlying article actually appeared in JAMA Network Open is citing the wrong number.
Not the same journal as JAMA
JAMA Network Open launched in 2018 as an open-access, continuously published general-medicine journal within the JAMA Network — the family of journals published by the AMA that also includes the flagship JAMA (a subscription-model weekly) and more than a dozen specialty JAMA titles (JAMA Internal Medicine, JAMA Oncology, JAMA Pediatrics, and others). Where the flagship JAMA curates a relatively small weekly selection across general medicine, JAMA Network Open publishes open access at much higher volume across essentially all areas of clinical and health-services research, without the weekly-issue constraint. That structural difference — open access, higher volume, continuous publication versus a curated weekly print-style journal — is a large part of why the two journals’ citation profiles, and therefore their JIFs, diverge and must be tracked separately.
What the number actually measures
The JIF is a ratio: citations received in a given JCR data year to citable items (articles and reviews) the journal published in the two preceding years, divided by the number of those citable items. JAMA Network Open has been JCR-indexed since shortly after its 2018 launch and now publishes several thousand articles a year across specialties including internal medicine, oncology, cardiology, psychiatry, health policy, and public health.
Current figure — sourced directly from the publisher
JAMA Network Open’s own journal page states its Journal Impact Factor as 11.7, which the publisher describes as the highest among large-volume, general-medicine open-access journals. CASRAI verified this figure directly against JAMA Network Open’s own “About” page on jamanetwork.com (last verified 16 August 2026) rather than relying on a third-party JCR-tracking aggregator or Wikipedia’s infobox, both of which can lag or diverge from the publisher’s own reporting. This figure reflects the current Journal Citation Reports cycle — Clarivate’s 2025 data year, released June 2026 — which is the cycle every JCR-indexed title is currently reporting against; JAMA Network Open’s own page does not separately publish a quartile ranking or five-year JIF, so for those, or to reconfirm the headline figure has not since changed, check the publisher’s page directly or, where accessible, jcr.clarivate.com. Clarivate’s JCR database itself sits behind institutional-subscription authentication and could not be checked directly by CASRAI. Do not substitute the flagship JAMA’s JIF for JAMA Network Open’s, or vice versa — confirm you are looking at the correct journal’s JCR entry, since both share the JAMA name and are frequently confused in casual citation.
Worked example (illustrative, not the journal’s real figures)
Using round, hypothetical numbers rather than JAMA Network Open’s actual annual citation and publication counts: if a journal published 4,000 citable items across the two preceding years, and those items received 44,000 citations in the JCR data year, the resulting JIF would be 44,000 / 4,000 = 11.0. This is the same mechanical calculation Clarivate applies to every JCR-indexed title, including JAMA Network Open and the flagship JAMA separately — what varies between them is the citation and publication volume feeding it, not the arithmetic.
Why this number alone is a poor stand-in for quality
Citation-tracking and assessment-reform organizations including DORA and the CoARA coalition caution against over-relying on a single journal-level metric to judge an individual article or researcher. DORA’s core recommendation is not to eliminate the JIF, but to stop using it as a proxy for the quality of a specific paper or the merit of an individual researcher’s work. This applies equally to JAMA Network Open: a high journal-level JIF describes the journal’s aggregate citation performance across thousands of articles a year, not the significance of any one paper published in it.
Counter-example
JAMA Network Open’s CiteScore (a separate Elsevier/Scopus metric using a four-year citation window and a broader document set) is not the same figure as its Clarivate JIF, and reporting one as if it were the other is a common sourcing error — the same error researchers make when they quote the flagship JAMA’s JIF for a JAMA Network Open article, or vice versa. All three figures (JAMA’s JIF, JAMA Network Open’s JIF, and either journal’s CiteScore) come from different computations and should be sourced and cited separately.
Keeping this current
Last verified by CASRAI: 16 August 2026, directly against jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/pages/about. JCR figures refresh annually each June with Clarivate’s new release; the 11.7 figure above reflects the 2025 data year (June 2026 release) and should be rechecked against JAMA Network Open’s own page after the next June release before being cited in a formal document.
Related terms
- Journal Impact Factor (JIF) — the general metric this page illustrates with one journal’s publisher-confirmed figure.
- PLOS ONE’s Journal Impact Factor (JIF) — a comparable open-access, high-volume journal, though PLOS itself declines to promote a JIF figure.
- Nature Medicine’s Journal Impact Factor (JIF) — a curated (non-megajournal) comparison point in clinical/translational medicine.
- CiteScore vs. Journal Impact Factor — how the two metric families differ in methodology.
- DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) — guidance against using journal-level metrics as a proxy for individual article or researcher quality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is JAMA Network Open’s Journal Impact Factor?
JAMA Network Open’s own journal page states its Impact Factor as 11.7, which the publisher describes as the highest among large-volume, general-medicine open-access journals. CASRAI verified this directly against jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/pages/about on 16 August 2026; it reflects the current JCR cycle (2025 data year, June 2026 release).
Is JAMA Network Open’s impact factor the same as the flagship JAMA journal’s?
No. JAMA Network Open and JAMA are separate journals within the JAMA Network, both published by the American Medical Association, and each has its own, separately computed JCR entry. Citing “JAMA’s impact factor” for an article that actually appeared in JAMA Network Open is a common but avoidable sourcing error.
How is JAMA Network Open’s Journal Impact Factor calculated?
The JIF is a ratio: citations received in a given JCR data year to a journal’s citable items (articles and reviews) from the two preceding years, divided by the number of those citable items. Clarivate applies this same mechanical formula to every JCR-indexed title, including JAMA Network Open and the flagship JAMA separately.
Is JAMA Network Open’s CiteScore the same as its Journal Impact Factor?
No. CiteScore is a separate Elsevier/Scopus metric that uses a four-year citation window and a broader set of documents, while the JIF is Clarivate’s metric with a two-year citation window. Reporting one figure as if it were the other is a common sourcing error.
Does a high Journal Impact Factor mean an individual JAMA Network Open article is high quality?
No. DORA and the CoARA coalition caution against using a journal-level metric like the JIF as a proxy for the quality of a specific article or the merit of an individual researcher’s work. JAMA Network Open’s JIF reflects aggregate citation performance across thousands of articles a year, not the significance of any one paper.
Where did CASRAI get the 11.7 figure, and when should it be rechecked?
Directly from JAMA Network Open’s own “About” page on jamanetwork.com, verified 16 August 2026 — not from a third-party JCR-tracking aggregator or Wikipedia. JCR figures refresh each June with Clarivate’s new release, so this number should be rechecked against the publisher’s page after that date.
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="JAMA Network Open’s Journal Impact Factor (JIF)"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/jama-network-open-impact-factor" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/jama-network-open-impact-factor",
"name": "JAMA Network Open's Journal Impact Factor (JIF)",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/jama-network-open-impact-factor",
"description": "JAMA Network Open's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is the Clarivate-computed, journal-level citation ratio the journal receives each year in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) -- citations in the JCR data year to the journal's citable items from the two preceding years, divided by that item count. JAMA Network Open's own journal page (jamanetwork.com) states this figure as 11.7, the highest among large-volume general-medicine open-access journals; CASRAI verified this directly against the publisher's page on 16 August 2026 rather than a third-party tracker or Wikipedia. It reflects the current JCR cycle -- the 2025 data year, released by Clarivate in June 2026. It is a separate, independently computed figure from the flagship JAMA journal's own JIF, and the two should never be quoted interchangeably. JAMA Network Open launched in 2018 as an open-access, general-medicine title within the JAMA Network family published by the American Medical Association (AMA); unlike the subscription-model flagship JAMA, it publishes open access across all areas of medicine rather than a curated weekly selection, which shapes how its citation volume accumulates relative to JAMA's.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/publishing#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/jama-network-open-impact-factor",
"sameAs": [],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-17T01:16:56",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
