This Scopus is broken, bring a new one: who controls the world’s scientific reputation?
At first glance, Scopus seems to be the perfect place for ambitious researchers seeking recognition. A huge database, prestigious journals, an authoritative index. But what lies behind this shiny wrapper? Predatory journals, commercial interests, corruption, and even political intrigue. Scopus is increasingly involved in scandals that call its reputation into question. We decided to find out whether it is time to bring in a “new Scopus”.
A great scientific machine that malfunctions
Scopus is a global database of scientific publications that is cited by universities, researchers, grant-making organisations and even governments. In a world where scientific reputation is currency, access to Scopus means international recognition. But like any monopoly, this system is far from perfect.
Violation of academic integrity
Scopus prides itself on its standards, but this does not prevent predatory journals from infiltrating the database. Journals that accept everything that is sent to them if they pay for it. Journals that do not check the data, but only imitate peer review. Have you seen a journal that has published hundreds, or even thousands of articles in a year? Such publications do exist, and they are also actively indexed in Scopus.
‘A colleague of mine submitted an article to a journal that was in Scopus. A year later, this journal was expelled for violating standards. But my colleague’s reputation had already been undermined,’ says one of the young Ukrainian researchers.
What happens to the journals that are included in Radar? They are excluded only after a thorough investigation, but the process takes months or even years. During this time, journals manage to ‘fly by’ hundreds of authors who are not even aware of the risk.
Predatory journals: who is hunting whom?
Predatory journals have become one of the most acute problems of modern science. They not only parasitise on the desire of researchers to publish in prestigious journals, but also actively undermine the credibility of science as such. How do they work? Why does Scopus index such journals from time to time? And how can researchers avoid the traps of these “predatory” structures?
Predatory journals are publications that aim not to disseminate quality science but to make a profit at the expense of authors. Their model is based on creating the appearance of legitimacy by offering:
- Fast acceptance of articles. In some cases, the decision to publish is made within a few days, which is simply impossible for a quality peer review.
- Low requirements for research quality. Many articles published in predatory journals are not properly peer-reviewed or have serious scientific errors.
- Prestige. Many such publications use similar names to existing reputable journals, misleading scientists.
Why do predatory journals get into Scopus?
Scopus claims to have a rigorous journal selection process, but predatory journals do find their way into the database from time to time. The reasons for this may be as follows:
Rapid growth. Some journals demonstrate encouraging quality at the beginning of their activity, but after getting into Scopus, they change their policy and switch to a “predatory” model. Or even resell the journal to third parties who want to make money on science.
Imperfect monitoring. Although Scopus uses the Radar tool for verification, it does not always detect violations in time. A journal can publish 500 articles in a month, and Scopus will notice this in a few months. When the articles are already indexed.
Legitimisation through conferences. Some predatory journals are affiliated with conferences that cooperate with Scopus and publish their materials through them.
Real cases of predatory journals in Scopus
1. A journal that was excluded due to massive article acceptance
The journal ResMilitaris (star 2023) published more than 1,000 articles in one year, many of which had significant scientific flaws. Subsequently, the journal was expelled from Scopus, but not before it had managed to “please” authors looking for quick publication.
2. Fake journals that imitate real ones
The Journal of Business and Economics Review has built a reputation by imitating the name of a reputable journal. It used a similar design and even lists fictitious editors. However, after being exposed, the journal was removed from the database, and its authors lost the ability to use their publications.
3. Predatory conferences
Conferences that cooperate with predatory journals are a separate problem. For example, pseudoscientific conferences in South Asia often promise to publish in Scopus journals, but as a result, articles end up in predatory journals that are soon excluded from the database.
There seems to be no point in explaining why this is dangerous for world science. But in the “marathon” of success, scientists use all methods. Legal and illegal. We will think about the consequences later, but it will be too late.
Why is it dangerous for science from the database side?
- Undermining trust. When predatory journals appear in the Scopus database, it calls into question its reliability as a tool for assessing scientific activity.
- Damage to the reputation of authors. Scientists who accidentally publish their work in such journals face problems: refusal of grants, loss of trust from colleagues.
- Blurring the boundaries between quality and quantity. Predatory journals promote pseudoscientific research that distorts the scientific picture.
Corruption in science: how much is prestige worth?
Now let’s talk about corruption. Have you ever thought that a place in a ‘good’ journal can be bought? It is a reality. Some journals keep double lists – one for peer-reviewed articles and the other for ‘paid’ articles. This is a problem not only for Scopus but for the entire scientific community. But when Scopus adds such journals to its database, it becomes part of the problem.
We would like the world to be a rosy place, and everyone to follow the rules of scientific integrity. However, the reality brings completely different ‘cases’ to our editorial office.
Over the years of cooperation with scientists, we have heard many stories of corrupt journals and publishers. The most interesting ones are worth sharing:
1. Two lists: one for the ‘chosen ones’ and one for the ‘payers’
Many journals, especially in regions with low regulation, have a dual system:
List 1: Articles that undergo real peer review.
List 2: Articles that are accepted automatically after payment.
The price for publication can vary from several hundred to several thousand dollars. For example, some journals offer ‘packages’ that guarantee publication regardless of the quality of the research.
2. Payment for ‘expedited review’
Some journals introduce a special ‘fast-track’ service for authors who want to get published quickly. In reality, this means that the review process is simply ignored, and the article goes straight to print.
3. Conferences as a cover
Often, journals work in tandem with conferences that offer publications in Scopus as part of participation. The author only has to pay for participation, and his or her article is automatically included in the journal without any peer review.
4. ‘We will publish your work, but we will add our co-authors’
There is nothing to explain here. You work on an article for months, go through all the stages of publication, and then see 5 unfamiliar names next to yours in the ‘authors’ section of the website.
5. Special issues with a guest editor
Even in leading journals such as Elsevier MDPI, scandals with special issues have been rife over the past couple of years. When the guest editor not only accepted articles for publication, but also by agreement with his colleagues, graduate students, etc. When the publication itself was not aware of what was happening at the editorial level, and the papers had already been published in a reputable journal and had no scientific value.
6. Manipulation of citation metrics
Some journals encourage authors or even force them to cite articles published earlier in the same journal in order to increase the journal’s citation index. This practice is known as ‘Citation Stacking’ or ‘Forced Citations’.
7. Publication of ‘fake’ or paid-for articles
Some journals agree to publish articles that do not meet scientific standards if the author or the organisation funding the article offers a significant financial reward. In such cases:
The data may be completely fictitious or altered to promote a particular product or idea. No review is carried out at all.
8. Selling positions on the editorial board
Some journals give editorial board positions to ‘pseudo-scholars’ for a fee. This allows people who are not properly qualified to influence the journal’s publication policy.
Politic in the Scopus database
And now we come to the most interesting part. Scopus proudly declares its neutrality. But how to explain that Russian journals are still indexed in the database despite the sanctions? The National Psychological Journal, a publication of Moscow State University, continues to hold its position in Scopus (and this is just one example, and there are hundreds of others). Isn’t this tacitly tolerating the aggressor? Especially when among the articles you can find gems like “the need for the OA and economic development” ….. Meanwhile, Ukrainian journals are often excluded due to technical “inconsistencies”.
Russian Journals in Scopus: Tacit Tolerance or Business Interests?
Scopus continues to index a number of Russian journals, despite the war in Ukraine and calls by many international organisations to stop cooperation with the aggressor country. For example:
- National Psychological Journal, published by Moscow State University, remains in the database and actively publishes materials.
- Eposovedenie is another Russian journal that was added to Scopus in 2024, indicating continued cooperation.
These facts undermine the reputation of Scopus as an independent platform. At a time when hundreds of international institutions are severing ties with Russia, leaving Russian journals in the database looks like tacit tolerance of aggression.
Ukrainian journals: the struggle for a place in the sun
In contrast, Ukrainian journals face constant challenges in maintaining their status in Scopus. The reasons for exclusion are often:
- Technical “inconsistencies”: non-compliance with certain formal requirements or problems with the regularity of publication due to the war.
- Low citation rates: many Ukrainian publications have a limited international audience, which affects their metrics.
- Problems with funding: in times of war, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a publication at a high level.
Ukrainian journals that make a significant contribution to international science are forced to struggle to be indexed, while some Russian publications remain in the database without significant obstacles.
Why does Scopus continue to cooperate with Russian journals?
Business interests. Russia remains a large market for scientific publications, and the exclusion of Russian journals could lead to a loss of significant revenue for Scopus.
Formal neutrality. Scopus states that it does not interfere in politics and does not discriminate against journals based on their nationality.
Difficulty in exclusion. Even if a journal has links to the government agencies of the aggressor country, exclusion requires a lengthy review process that does not always result in exclusion.
“Scopus does not take into account the context of the war and how scientific publications can be used for propaganda,” are the comments we receive from scientists who are outraged by the policy of the scientific database.
Is there a need for a new Scopus?
It would seem that Scopus is the pinnacle of the scientific world. However, more and more scientists are asking the question: isn’t it time to create a new database? Transparent, accessible, and free from corruption. Does it sound ambitious? Yes, but is it possible?
The problem is that Scopus and Web of Science have effectively monopolised the market. Any new initiative requires huge investments and support. But if science is to remain independent, these issues need to be discussed now.
Today, in many countries, publishing in journals indexed in WoS or Scopus is mandatory by law. Therefore, even in theory, it is difficult to imagine how to change the current state of affairs and introduce new standards and norms for publication.
Indeed, alternative databases already exist. Not so popular, more narrowly focused, with open or closed access. But so far, none of them has the same coverage and influence as the two giants of scientometrics.
At the moment, we can only observe how quickly the curtain will fall on the Scopus backstage. Or whether the giant machine will continue to function with its own shortcomings. So far, we cannot say that Elsevier is really improving the systemic work of Scopus (publishing lists of CSAB members and removing restrictions on the age of a journal to be included in the database).
In our practice, we see many pitfalls and gaps in the system. However, we still help researchers to overcome all obstacles on the way to publishing a scientific article. E-SCIENCE SPACE strives for the best for science and scientists. That is why we select only high-quality and reputable journals for you, provide professional translation of your texts and support at every stage of preparation and publication.
