The December 2020 Scopus discontinued journal update is located here. On this list the reader will find many OMICS and WSEAS journals [260], as well as journals from other publishers you might not expect, such as Elsevier and Inderscience. Remember, just because a journal is listed with a top tier publisher does not mean they are Scopus indexed or not on an old Beall list.
Many students are also shocked to find out that there is a Scopus journal discontinued list [260], similar in some ways to what Jeffrey Beall was attempting to do with his predatory publishing lists before he deleted then in January 2017. We also noted the removal of 12 WSEAS titles from the Scopus index in December 2020 for ‘publication concerns’. This is a screen capture of the WSEAS titles from the previous October 2020 Scopus spreadsheet:
Some readers might also be interested to know that journals/conferences can be re-considered after their removal by Scopus. From our research, we think this can happen as soon as one year from their initial removal by their re-evaluation by the Scopus Content Selection & Advisory Board (CSAB) [275]. Some might also want to know what ‘Radar’ is on the Scopus discontinued list. Simply stated, Radar is a tool which began in 2017 by which Scopus identifies and filters out ‘outlier journals’. Outlier journals are journals indexed in Scopus which show outlier behavior and rapid, unexplainable changes in behavior. Red flags are stated by Scopus to include
1) Total article output and sudden article output growth,
2) Shift in geographical diversity among authors and editors, and
3) Shift in received citations and percentage of self-citations [275].
Therefore, these red flags may point to the beginning of malpractice and their subsequent removal. In Radar's first analysis for 2016/2017, Scopus flagged 509 titles for re-evaluation. Of these, 312 were discontinued from Scopus, which represented a 61% discontinuation rate.
Moreover, it is our observation that this Scopus’ aggressive journal removal process coincided with the Beall Lists’ demise. Jeffrey Beall deleted his lists in January 2017, which is the same year that Scopus launched Radar [275]. Was this the last and final coincidence between the big publishers and Beall?
Our final comments in all this concerns a journal’s metric and Radar analysis once they become Scopus indexed. Does the Radar tool take into account that by Scopus inclusion, the journal’s value has increased exponentially? As such, there is always a deluge of papers, the addition or significant increase in the journal’s APC, the number of papers per issue, and an increase of global paper submissions. Does Radar have a component for good business sense and profit? Or is that left only for the biggest publisher, Elsevier (in 2019 Elsevier had 2,500 academic journals bringing in $3.414 billion in earnings [141]), and their own tool, Scopus Radar, to eliminate potential competition?
It is also interesting to note that there is zero mention of the word ‘predatory’ as a criteria for journal removal from Scopus. Nor is there any mention about there being a criteria of lax review. No, the removal criteria seems to be entirely focused on a potential competitor growing too quickly (and making too much money). Monopolies and cartels are good, competition is bad. Once again, being the police (index inclusion/Beall lists), the judge (SJR/Scopus databases), and the jury (RADAR/CSAB) is what makes cartels and monopolies work.
Finally, the following screen capture is from a very interesting study authored in July 2019 concerning Scopus discontinued journals [260]:
No comments:
Post a Comment