Computational Condensed Matter

Our screening does not flag Computational Condensed Matter. That is not a guarantee of quality — it means the venue is not on Beall's archive (frozen since 2017) and does not match our name-pattern heuristic. It is listed in Scopus, Web of Science, which is a positive signal.

Per our venue index, Computational Condensed Matter appears in: Scopus, Web of Science. Index membership changes over time — confirm on the index's own site before relying on it.

Papers in Computational Condensed Matter are cited about 3.3 times each within two years of publication, and Scimago places it in Q2, with an h-index of 42. Those are the open equivalents: the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor is a proprietary metric we neither compute nor license, so we show the two-year citation rate and Scimago quartile instead — they answer the same question of how heavily the journal is cited. A citation rate is a property of a field as much as of a journal.

In the Scimago Journal Rank 2025 edition, Computational Condensed Matter is Q2 in all 4 of its subject categories. By category: Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials: Q2, #131 of 279; Materials Chemistry: Q2, #143 of 331; Condensed Matter Physics: Q2, #183 of 443; Materials Science (miscellaneous): Q2, #328 of 700. Quartiles split the journals in a subject category into four equal groups by SJR, so Q1 is the most-cited quarter and Q4 the least; Computational Condensed Matter is cited about 3.3 times per paper over two years, with an h-index of 42.

The Web of Science quartile comes from Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a proprietary product we neither license nor compute — so we cannot state a JCR quartile for Computational Condensed Matter. The open equivalent is its Scimago quartile, Q2, derived from Scopus citation data. Because JCR ranks against Web of Science and Scimago against Scopus, the two can differ, so check Clarivate's site directly if you need the JCR quartile specifically.

Our index records its access status as "hybrid". Where this is derived from publisher-level signals rather than works-level data it is a heuristic, so confirm on the journal's own site — particularly if an article processing charge matters to you.