See these previous discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_seemingly_dubious_journals_indexed_in_Scopus

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Scopus_doing_a_good_job_in_identifying_and_dealing_with_predatory_journals

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_we_can_identify_the_predatory_publishings_on_Scopus

https://www.researchgate.net/post/List_of_Predatory_Journals_Journal_Indexed_by_Scopus_and_Scopus_Discontinued_April_2021

Dear Mohi-Adden Yahya Al-Qutop ,

This is as indicated by Wolfgang R. Dick discussed on numerous occasions. It remains a somewhat mysterious and certainly disturbing phenomenon. Roughly speaking it can be explained because:

-Some journals (and publishers) lie about the indexing (say they are Scopus indexed while this was, if ever, the case years ago) or use so-called misleading metrics (including fake impact factors) https://beallslist.net/misleading-metrics/

-Journals ‘behave’ for a couple of years to fulfil the criteria to be included in for example Scopus and after that show their predatory behaviour and publish suspiciously large number of papers. A notorious example can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are-these-journals-indexed-by-Scopus-IJEAT-IJRTE-and-IJITEE

-(Predatory) Journals manage to fulfil the criteria but most likely will be discontinued within the next 1-3 years. See Article When it comes to predatory journals, is Scopus doing a good ...

-Last but not least they are included because they are/were wrongfully so included in the Beall’s list, most clear example are the Frontier journals. They are included because the publisher is included in the list of potentially predatory publishers but here the Beall’s list is clearly wrong

It is advisable to check the Beall’s list (https://beallslist.net/) for first indication and then check carefully by checking things like “Scopus content coverage” (do you see sudden increase in number of published papers? Warning sign), check SCImago comments for the particular journal of interest (often when there is something wrong you can find alarming comments. Warning sign), check location (do they mention a virtual office. Warning sign) etc. etc. Finally, of course check some of the papers (how do you estimate their quality).

Hope this answers your question somewhat.

Best regards.

(I don't think Bealls predatory list have anything to do with being indexed). It might be or not. Maybe say there is an evident connection...

Unsuspecting readers, access the articles because of the interest in the subject. And the more you access the higher the impact. And it's hard to believe it goes into scopus!!

Dear Rob Keller ,

I have to discuss with you the following criterium, you have posted:

"Journals ‘behave’ for a couple of years to fulfil the criteria to be included in for example Scopus and after that show their predatory behaviour and publish suspiciously large number of papers. A notorious example can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are-these-journals-indexed-by-Scopus-IJEAT-IJRTE-and-IJITEE"

So this would mean, that numbers in the table below fulfill this criterium and that journal behaves as predator, right?

Table Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

Year Documents

1999 108

2000 133

2001 131

2002 136

2003 138

2004 380

2005 170

2006 155

2007 268

2008 356

2009 538

2010 351

2011 525

2012 1088

2013 1438

2014 2164

2015 2161

2016 2552

2017 2510

2018 3157

2019 3212

2020 3503

The increase of papers published from 2012 is obviously enormous and therefore this journal should be also marked as predatory journal in the Beall's list, right?

But these numbers (taken from scimagojr.com) are valid for Ceramics International journal which can surely not be marked as predatory.

So what is the right criterium? Because this one, you posted probably is not.