A recent and highly interesting paper: Article Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences
identified several hundreds of (potentially) predatory journals in the Scopus list (according to the Beall's list). A recent analysis using their identified journal titles: Article When it comes to predatory journals, is Scopus doing a good ...
demonstrated that to date two third of these titles are discontinued. This raises several questions, for example:-Is this demonstrating that Scopus is doing a good job when it comes to recognizing and eliminating predatory journals?
-Compared to 2017 has the number of predatory journals increased or decreased? In other word show well do we know how many predatory journals made it through the Scopus indexing between 2017 and 2021?
-Anyone having an example of a ‘questionable’ journal currently indexed?
For those interested, have a look at a related question/point raised by https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sajid-Mohy-Ul-Din :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Request_Scopus_to_maintain_Under-Review_Journals_List_at_website The above-mentioned analysis and report did not established how long Scopus did before discontinuing a particular title. In other word show long does Scopus take between their initial indexing and final evaluation. This indeed raises the question whether Scopus should not maintain a seperate list of journals currently 'under review'.
For those interested, have a look at a related question/point raised by https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sajid-Mohy-Ul-Din :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Request_Scopus_to_maintain_Under-Review_Journals_List_at_website The above-mentioned analysis and report did not established how long Scopus did before discontinuing a particular title. In other word show long does Scopus take between their initial indexing and final evaluation. This indeed raises the question whether Scopus should not maintain a seperate list of journals currently 'under review'.
Dear Rajlakshmi Kanjilal
Your point is indeed recently addressed in the paper I linked in this discussion: Macháček, V., Srholec, M. Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4 and I quote “Last, but not least, there is the underlying question why there are predatory journals in Scopus in the first place. Journals indexed in Scopus should fulfil minimum quality requirements (Scopus 2019). However, these criteria are either rather formal, derived from bibliometrics or rely on what the journal declares about itself. Predatory journals manage to look like regular scientific outlets on the outside, their bibliometric profile might not differ that much from other fringe journals and they do not shy away from lying about their editorial practices. So this filter is not likely to be effective in keeping out fake journals that are good pretenders. Scopus needs to find a way to fact-check whether the journal adheres to the declared editorial practices, including most prominently how the peer-review process is performed in practice. Unless the selection criteria are upgraded and/or the bar for inclusion is raised significantly, fake scientific journals will keep creeping in the database.”Best regards.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Ornithology
- birds
- Scopus