The guardians of Scopus

Whether you do research or use research to make critical decisions, you need access to the highest quality content. That’s why we make it a priority to maintain the integrity of Scopus through expert curation and continual monitoring. 

As the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, Scopus features the content of more than 7,000 publishers, with tools that allow you to track, analyze and visualize this research. Scopus is curated by a Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB), comprised of editorially independent subject experts who are vigilant in identifying and discontinuing journals that are — or have become — predatory or of poor quality. Using strict title selection criteria, these experts determine whether journals are eligible for indexing in Scopus, and they continually re-evaluate these titles to make sure quality is maintained.  

Of course, we welcome any research that sheds light on predatory journals. At the same time, determining whether a journal is predatory is a complex process that requires a detailed review based on various considerations. There is no universally agreed upon definition of a predatory journal or publisher. And to complicate matters, a journal can become predatory over time. 

As Prof Sack explained:  

Whether or not a journal is predatory is not a binary decision; there is a broad spectrum of predatory journal behaviors. To assess whether a journal should be considered predatory, a number of parameters need to be considered, often in combination. Analogously for publishers, while some publishers clearly exhibit general predatory behavior, others may publish a mix of journals – some definitely predatory, some less so, yet others not. This often depends on the strength and independence of editorial boards. This makes publisher-level black-listing difficult and possibly even flawed.

Also, predatory publishers are always adapting to detection measures put into place. But we also adapt, coming up with novel strategies to monitor and identify these journals.  

Furthermore, we have witnessed a time-variant factor. Several journals, correctly admitted into Scopus based on their quality, changed over time. Measurable changes included dramatic increases in volume and modification of editorial direction, topics, even entire fields, editorial boards and publishers. Here, the benefit of being listed in Scopus is predatorially exploited over time. This makes a process of re-evaluation essential.

Scopus has several drivers for re-evaluation, he said. Journals may be flagged by an automatic tool that regularly surveys the Scopus database, or they may be targeted for re-evaluation when concerns are raised. 

Of the titles that were flagged for re-evaluation in 2017 because of concerns over publication practices (including those journals listed by Beall), the board decided to stop covering 65 percent of them.  

When the decision is made to discontinue covering a journal, the content that is already in Scopus remains, but no new articles are included. Crucially, content already indexed remains as a matter of scientific record and to ensure the stability and consistency of research trend analytics — a core value of Scopus. 

You can find a complete overview of which titles have been discontinued, and the last content indexed on the platform from each, on the Scopus content policy page opens in new tab/window (navigate to the section Title Re-evaluation).