OpenJournalRank

RAS Techniques and Instruments

Oxford University Press

ISSN-L
2752-8200
OpenAlex ID
S4387280546
APC list price
$1,732
Full statisticsOpen accessIn DOAJCore list

In 2025, RAS Techniques and Instruments had an OJR of 0.73: its 2022–2024 papers received 73% of the world-average citations for comparable papers. Its Impact factor (2-year) was 2.46. Both figures are calculated from OpenAlex data.

RAS Techniques and Instruments is Q2 in OpenJournalRank’s 2025 Astronomy and Astrophysics ranking (#38 of 107 eligible journals). These are OJR quartiles, calculated independently of SCImago, Scopus and JCR quartiles.

OpenAlex-listed APC: US$1,732 (source snapshot September 23, 2026). Check current charges with the journal.

In context

How RAS Techniques and Instruments compares with the journals of its comparison group: Physics and Astronomy. Windows are 2022–2024 (retractions 2015–2024).

Each group is the journal’s field, or its domain when the field has too few eligible journals. On each value track the shaded band is the middle half of the group and the tick its median. The percentile under it is a mid-rank position out of 100: journals with a lower value count fully and tied journals count half, so ties share a mid-rank. Colour marks only retractions, cost and an unusual self-citation share; other differences carry no quality judgement.

How field comparisons work

  • This journal
  • Median
  • Middle half of field

Integrity and cost

Retracted papers per 1,000

Papers marked retracted per 1,000 citable papers at the OpenAlex snapshot date; this does not show the reasons for retraction or assess a journal’s practices.

No comparison
—

Comparison group too small or not enough papers for this measure.

Listed APC (USD)

The article processing charge OpenAlex lists for the source; zero means a listed charge of $0.

Middle half of the field: $1,980–$3,550; median $3,000; n = 213 field journals.

Below typical range
$1,732vs field median $3,000
$0$2K$4K

Field percentile: 19/100 among 213 eligible journals

19/100

Journal self-citation share

Share of citations to window papers that come from the same journal; a high share can reflect a narrow specialty and is not evidence of misconduct.

Middle half of the field: 3.0%–12.7%; median 6.4%; n = 293 field journals.

Typical for field
3.8%vs field median 6.4%
0%5%10%15%

Field percentile: 33/100 among 293 eligible journals

33/100

Openness and reach

Open access share

Share of window papers marked open access among papers with known OA status.

Middle half of the field: 37.5%–100.0%; median 73.4%; n = 358 field journals.

Typical for field
100.0%vs field median 73.4%
0%40%80%

Field percentile: 80/100 among 358 eligible journals

80/100

International collaboration share

Share of window papers with at least two distinct affiliation countries among papers with a known country.

Middle half of the field: 20.6%–39.5%; median 30.1%; n = 348 field journals.

Above typical range
55.3%vs field median 30.1%
0%20%40%60%

Field percentile: 94/100 among 348 eligible journals

94/100

Output growth

Change in citable paper counts between two adjacent three-year windows; it does not show changes in research quality or explain why output changed.

No comparison
—

Comparison group too small or not enough papers for this measure.

Document mix

Review share

Reviews as a share of all citable window papers.

Middle half of the field: 0.0%–0.0%; median 0.0%; n = 358 field journals.

Typical for field
0.0%vs field median 0.0%
0%40%80%

Field percentile: 44/100 among 358 eligible journals

44/100

Articles-only OJR

OJR for classified window articles only, using the same baseline cells as the overall score.

Middle half of the field: 0.29–1.07; median 0.61; n = 352 field journals.

Typical for field
0.73vs field median 0.61
0.00.51.01.5

Field percentile: 60/100 among 352 eligible journals

60/100

Citation distribution

Uncited share

Share of window papers receiving no non-self citations in the indicator year.

Middle half of the field: 27.0%–59.1%; median 38.3%; n = 358 field journals.

Typical for field
35.6%vs field median 38.3%
0%40%80%

Field percentile: 43/100 among 358 eligible journals

43/100

Citation concentration

Share of non-self citations received by the journal’s most-cited 10% of window papers.

Middle half of the field: 42.2%–57.8%; median 48.2%; n = 356 field journals.

Typical for field
47.9%vs field median 48.2%
0%40%80%

Field percentile: 48/100 among 356 eligible journals

48/100