The quality of our content is very important for Scope Database. Scope Database re-evaluate all the title/journal already indexed in Scope Database to maintain their quality metrics year over year. To determine journal quality, Scope Database use the annual Re-evaluation procedure which identifies outlier and underperforming journals in different ways:

  • Scope Database identifies underperforming journals for Re-evaluation by using sevenquality metrics and guidelines which all journals in the Scope database must meet year after year. If a journal does not meet any of the seven benchmarks for two consecutive years, the CSC will re-evaluate the journal based on the Scope Database title selection criteria with result of discontinuation of the journals from Scope Database
  • Scope Database identifies outlier journals for Re-evaluation by using the data analytics tool ‘Journal Analyser’ on an annual basis. This tool identifies journals outlier behaviours given below
    • Rapid and aggressive article output growth in the journal
    • Unexplainable and unanticipatedchanges to affiliation country
    • High journal self-citation rates, amongst others.

    All journals identified by the Journal Analyser tool will be re-evaluated by the CSC in the year of identification. CSC review is based on the Scope Database title selection criteria and may result in discontinuation of the journals from Scope Database

  • Journals for which users, researchers, buyer and stakeholders have publication concerns will be added to Re-evaluation if the claim is identified as acceptable. The journal will be re-evaluated by the CSC in the year of identification based on the Scope Database title selection criteria with as prospective outcome discontinuation of the journal from Scope Database

Quality Metrics and guidelines

S.No Quality Metrics Guideline not met when Clarification
1. Self-citation rate Self-citation rate is ≥300% compared to the average in its subject fields/Subject Area The journal has a self-citation rate of three times higher or more, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field/Subject area
2. Total citation rate Total citation rate is ≤35% compared to the average in its subject area The journal received 35% of citations, or less, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject area
3. Impact Factor Score (IFS) IFS is ≤35% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal has an Impact Factor Score (IFS) of 35% or less than the average Impact Factor Score, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
4. Number of articles published Number of Articles published is ≤75% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal published 75%, or less, the number of articles, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
5. Number of Authors included in the paper Number of authors ≥200% compared to the average in its subject fields/Subject Area The journal included two time higher or more, the number of authors indexed, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
6. Number of fulltext usage on Scopedatabase.com Number of full text usage is ≤35% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal's full texts suage is 35% or less, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
7. Abstract and reference usage on Scopedatabase.com Abstract and Reference usage is ≤35% compared to the average in its subject fields The Abstract and Reference usage is 35% or less, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.

If a journal does not meet any of the seven guidelines, Scope Database will inform the journal of its quality performance and will allow the journal two year to improve at least one metric. If two year later the journal should improve at least one metric, the journal will not be part of Re-evaluation that year. However, if a journal does not meet all of the seven benchmarks for three consecutive years, it will be marked for re-evaluation by the independent Content Selection Committee (CSC)

The review criteria for re-evaluation are same to the Scope Database content selection criteria used for newly suggested titles/journals. After completion of the re-evaluation process, the CSC will decide to either continue a journal’s coverage or to discontinue the journal its coverage in Scope Database(content covered in Scope Database prior to the re-evaluation completion will remain in Scope Database). If necessary Scope Database will remove all indexed data from Scope Database for a particular journal or publisher


Email contact: re-evaluation@scopedatabase.com