Scopus launches annual journal re-evaluation process to maintain content quality
Since Scopus’ launch in 2004, more than 56 million records have been added to the database. The content originally came from different sources (in-house databases like Embase, ScienceDirect and Compendex, the Scopus Title Suggestion Form and Medline) and has undergone different levels of Scopus content evaluation. This, together with the fact that the title evaluation criteria have evolved over time to become more strict, has led to a situation where some journals no longer meet the Scopus quality criteria.
As high content quality is very important to Scopus, and as an incentive for journals to maintain their high content quality, the title re-evaluation process has been implemented. Six quality metrics and benchmarks have been put in place which are the basis of the re-evaluation process, please find them in the below table. These criteria have been developed with the Scopus Content Selection & Advisory Board in conjunction with our Analytical Services team.
Journals not meeting the benchmarks of all six quality metrics will be red flagged by Scopus and asked to address the issues. If the red flag remains, the journals will be reviewed by the independent Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB), with the possible consequence of the journal being discontinued in Scopus.
For additional information, please visit our info site. For questions, please contact: re-evaluation@scopus.com.
| Metric | Benchmark | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Self-citations | 200% | The journal has a self-citation rate two times higher, or more, when compared to peer journals in its subject field. |
| Citations | 50% | The journal received half the number of citations, when compared to peer journals in its subject field. |
| Impact Per Publication | 50% | The journal has an IPP score half or less than the average IPP score, when compared to peer journals in its subject field. |
| Article Output | 50% | The journal produced half, or less, the number of articles, when compared to peer journals in its subject field. |
| Abstract Usage | 50% | The journal's abstract are used half as much, or less, when compared to peer journals in its subject field. |
| Full Text Links | 50% | The journal's full text are used half as much, or less, when compared to peer journals in its subject field. |