The quality of our content is paramount for Scope Database. In addition to journals undergoing a rigorous evaluation and selection processes prior to acceptance into Scope Database, they must also demonstrate the ability to maintain their quality status year over year. To determine journal quality, Scope Database runs the annual Re-evaluation program which identifies outlier and underperforming journals in three different ways:

  • Scope Database identifies underperforming journals for Re-evaluation by using six metrics and benchmarks which all journals in the database must meet year after year. If a journal does not meet any of the six benchmarks for two consecutive years, the CSC will re-evaluate the journal based on the Scope Database title selection criteria with as potential outcome discontinuation of the journal its forward flow from Scope Database
  • Scope Database identifies outlier journals for Re-evaluation by running the data analytics tool ‘Content Analyser’ on an annual basis. This tool identifies journals demonstrating outlier behaviours such as sudden and exponential article output growth, unexplainable and sudden changes to affiliation country, or high journal self-citation rates, amongst others. All journals identified by the Content 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 journal’s forward flow from Scope Database
  • Journals for which users, buyers or stakeholders have publication concerns will be added to Re-evaluation if the claim is identified as legitimate. The journal will be re-evaluated by the CSC in the year of identification based on the Scope Database title selection criteria with as potential outcome discontinuation of the journal its forward flow from Scope Database

Metrics and benchmarks

Once a year, Scope Database analyses the performance of all journals in the database. All journals must meet the below six metrics and benchmarks defined by Scope Database

Metric Benchmark not met when Explanation
Self-citation rate ≥300% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal has a self-citation rate, three times higher, or more, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
Total citation rate ≤50% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal received half the number of citations, or less, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
Impact Factor Score (IFS) ≤50% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal has a Impact Factor Score (IFS) half or less than the average Impact Factor Score, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
Number of articles ≤50% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal produced half, or less, the number of articles, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
Number of full-text clicks on Scopedatabase.com ≤50% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal's full texts are used half as much, or less, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.
Abstract usage on Scopedatabase.com ≤50% compared to the average in its subject fields The journal's abstracts are used half as much, or less, when compared to peer reviewed journals in its subject field.

If a journal does not meet any of the six benchmarks, Scope Database will inform the journal of its quality performance and will allow the journal one year to improve at least one metric. If one year later the journal could 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 six benchmarks for two consecutive years, it will be flagged for re-evaluation by the independent Content Selection Committee (CSC)

The review criteria for re-evaluation are identical to the Scope Database content selection criteria used for newly suggested titles. Upon completion of the re-evaluation process, the CSC will decide to either continue a journal’s coverage or to discontinue the forward flow of the journal its coverage in Scope Database (content covered in Scope Database prior to the re-evaluation completion will remain in Scope Database).


Email contact: re-evaluation@scopedatabase.com