Learn how Scopus can help your organization achieve its goals.
Content policy and selection
What Scopus users need to know
For your research to be the best that it can be, you need access to the most up-to-date and highest quality interdisciplinary content. This is why Scopus has a clearly stated selection policy and an internationally acclaimed board of selection experts — so you can be sure that what you see on Scopus meets your high standards.
While most of the information on this page is for publishers wishing to have their content included on Scopus, we invite you to read on. We hope you'll get a sense of the level of scrutiny and focus on authority that is the hallmark of Scopus.
What publishers need to know
Scopus continually reviews and expands its corpus. As the largest indexer of global research content, Scopus includes titles from more than 7,000 publishers worldwide. These journals, books and conference papers are visible to millions of Scopus users, who read your content and then cite it in papers, grant applications and reports, and patent applications. To ensure that Scopus serves the broadest information needs of researchers, our Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) constantly reviews suggestions and publishing programs in order to expand our content listings.
Scopus helps to:
Increase the visibility of your publication(s)
Deliver a global audience of researchers and experts for your peer-review programs
Track the performance of your publication(s)
Monitor competitive publications
We are proud of our transparent selection process and independent review board. The international experts on our Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) continually review new titles using both quantitative and qualitative measures. CSAB members have deep subject matter expertise and are committed to actively seeking out and selecting literature that meets the needs and standards of the research community that they represent.
Journal technical criteria
To be considered for review, journals should meet all the technical criteria:
Consist of peer-reviewed content and have a publicly available description of its peer review process
Be published on a regular basis and have an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) registered with the ISSN International Centre
Have a publication history to be reviewed
Have content that is relevant for and readable by an international audience (have English language abstracts and titles)
Have a publicly available publication ethics and publication malpractice statement
Publication ethics and malpractice statements
Publication malpractice is an unfortunate occurrence in the world of scholarly literature. It happens in all subject areas and in all jurisdictions, and few journals or books are immune. The prevention of publication malpractice is the responsibility of every author, editor, reviewer, publisher and institution.
Scopus requires every suggested journal to have a clear and publicly available statement of publication ethics and publication malpractice. Scopus will hold each publisher listed in its database accountable for performance and compliance with these policies. Scopus does not mandate any specific wording for these statements, but notes that:
Major publishers already publish comprehensive statements of compliance on their websites. See Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for an example.
Several industry organizations publish comprehensive guidelines and advice that can be readily adopted by any publisher. Such notable organizations include:
Scopus provides this document with expectations for statements: Guidance on the Scopus Title Evaluation Requirements of Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
For more information on the importance of ethics in research and publication, see Elsevier’s Ethics module in Research Academy.
Generative AI policies
Generative AI (GenAI) presents both opportunities and challenges in scientific writing and academic publishing. To improve transparency, Scopus encourages journals to have a dedicated GenAI policy and disclose the use of GenAI in creating content or anywhere else in the peer review and publishing process. We are aware that GenAI is developing fast, and Scopus does not demand specific requirements or wording in such a policy. However, note that major publishers and associations already publish policies or declarations on the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing on their websites. Examples include:
Elsevier: The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the review process
WAME: Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts
Journal selection criteria
Journals that meet all the technical criteria and are eligible for review by the CSAB will be evaluated on the following five categories of criteria:
Category | Criteria |
Journal policy | Convincing editorial policy Type of peer review Diversity in geographical distribution of editors Diversity in geographical distribution of authors |
Content | Academic contribution to the field Clarity of abstracts Quality of and conformity to the stated aims and scope of the journal Readability of articles |
Journal standing | Citedness of journal articles in Scopus Editor standing |
Publishing regularity | No delays or interruptions in the publication schedule |
Online availability | Full journal content available online English language journal home page available Quality of journal home page |
Serial title evaluation process
Journals may be suggested to the CSAB for inclusion in Scopus by the publisher or editor(s) of the title. Before suggesting a serial title, please:
Check the current Scopus title lists to be sure it's not already indexed: Journals list
Read the CSAB's statement: An Introduction to the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB)
Ensure that all technical criteria are met
Review the selection criteria
Review the CSAB’s FAQs for journal editors: Role of an Editor
If all criteria are met and you find that the title is ready to be suggested for Scopus review, you can use the Scopus Title Suggestion Form.
You can check the progress of your suggestion by entering the unique Tracking ID provided at the time of submission into the Title Evaluation Tracker.
The outcome of the review, including reviewer comments, will be communicated to the publisher and/or editor once the CSAB has made a final decision. In case of rejection, there will be an embargo period during which the title cannot be suggested again.
Please note that Scopus also proactively adds titles that can potentially enrich the database to its evaluation pipeline. In such cases the evaluation will only begin after the original publisher or journal management of the journal gives consent.
Title re-evaluation policy
To maintain the quality of our Scopus content, curation of included titles is essential. In addition to journals undergoing a rigorous evaluation and selection process before acceptance, they must also demonstrate the ability to maintain their quality status.
To determine journal quality, Scopus runs an ongoing re-evaluation program. Titles can be flagged for re-evaluation in different ways:
Concerns about the journal’s publication standards
The journal shows outlier or unexpected publishing performance
Publication concerns
Concerns about the publication standards of a journal indexed in Scopus can be raised by the research community. These concerns can be at either the publisher or journal level and could include, but are not limited to, issues related to publication ethics and research integrity. If the concerns are validated and legitimate, the title will be flagged for re-evaluation by the CSAB.
Outlier performance
Elsevier data scientists have developed a data model to identify outlier or unexpected performance of journals in the Scopus database. The data model detects outlier signals and other anomalies such as unexpected patterns in publication activities, citation graphs, author collaborations, or content. It continually improves by incorporating new examples or developing new signals. The model runs regularly to check all Scopus journals, and journals may be flagged for re-evaluation for suspicious performance.
Title re-evaluation process
The CSAB re-evaluates all flagged titles using review criteria identical to the Scopus content selection criteria for newly suggested titles.
The board also informs the publisher and requests relevant information to enrich the online title evaluation form. To ensure that no content from journals under re-evaluation is included in Scopus during this review process, the content flow for these titles will be suspended until the re-evaluation is complete. After concluding the re-evaluation, the CSAB will decide to either continue a journal’s coverage or to discontinue the forward flow of the journal's coverage in Scopus. The outcome of the review, including reviewer comments, is then communicated to the publisher.
For journals that are continued, content flow will resume. For journals that are discontinued or put on hold, the content already indexed in Scopus remains as a matter of scientific record and to ensure the stability and consistency of research trend analytics. In exceptional cases of proven and severe unethical publication practice, content already indexed in Scopus may be removed. In case of discontinuation, there will be an embargo period during which the title cannot be suggested again.
Discontinued titles can be found in the Scopus source title list (download the Excel file). The file includes the list of discontinued sources and is updated monthly.
For questions, or to raise publication concerns, please email [email protected].
Journal change policy
To maintain high quality standards, Scopus ensures that any changes to a source (journal) are carefully monitored and validated. We verify the authenticity of source changes before making any updates. These include, but are not limited to, changes to the title name, ISSN, ownership, or editorial oversight of the journal. Scopus does not guarantee that a journal will remain selected for coverage after the change; this is subject to continued discretional review by the CSAB. Journals that have undergone significant change will be considered new journals and may be submitted for Scopus review according to the regular title evaluation process.
To come to a decision to accept or reject a title for Scopus, Elsevier follows the independent advice from the CSAB. Elsevier, in consultation with the CSAB, reserves the right to change decisions, adjust the selection criteria, halt, remove, or re-evaluate titles that are accepted for Scopus without prior notice.
Appeals
Complaints or objections to review decisions are usually resolved between the publisher and the Scopus team, who will consult with the CSAB if needed. For cases where the decision is still being questioned, we have an appeal procedure.
Appeals apply only to the question of whether significant factual errors occurred in the review process. To invoke the appeals procedure, the publisher of the journal needs to provide clear evidence of these significant factual errors. By asking for an appeal, the publisher is agreeing to accept the findings of any appeal as final. Valid appeals are submitted to the independent Appeals Officer and the CSAB for their consideration. If the appeal is warranted, the reviewers of the CSAB will be asked to reconsider the review and decision. However, a valid appeal case does not guarantee that the CSAB will change its decision.
Publishers should submit an appeal within six weeks of receiving a rejection letter.
Books selection process
Scopus covers globally sourced academic books that include scholarly, professional or educational information.
They can be published as one-off books or as serial books (serial titles with ISSN). Serial books follow the serial title evaluation process. Conference proceedings and dissertations are not considered for evaluation as books and are evaluated through other routes.
Selection of one-off books is via a publisher-based approach in which the entire book program is considered. The CSAB decides which publishers are selected and does not consider individual book suggestions.
Publishers can suggest their books list for Scopus coverage via the Scopus book suggestion form.
Books technical criteria
A books list will only be considered for evaluation if it meets the following technical criteria:
All books must contain ISBNs.
All books must be available in digital format, i.e., books available only in hard copy are ineligible. All metadata must be provided in ONIX or MARC format.
All metadata must contain BIC, BISAC or, eventually, THEMA subject area codes.
Book metadata (including title and abstract) must be in English, while the full text may
Books selection criteria
Book lists that meet the technical criteria are reviewed by the CSAB according to the following selection criteria:
Reputation and impact of the publisher
Size and subject area of the books list
Availability and format of the book content
Publication policy and editorial mission
Quality of published book content
For selected publishers, in principle, all academic books of the entire book program, including its imprints, are in scope for coverage. At all times, Scopus reserves the right to remove a book or an imprint collection from a selected publisher’s book publishing program — for example, something objectionable, such as hate literature, or an imprint exhibiting questionable publishing practices. For questions, please email [email protected].
Conferences selection process
Conferences are events where people come together to discuss a particular subject or share information. The works presented at a conference are often published as conference publications.
Conferences can be published as a one-off conference, serial publication or as part of a journal. For one-off conferences, we follow the selection process and criteria for Engineering Village. Serial conference publications may be suggested to the CSAB through the serial title evaluation process.
Conferences series are continually reviewed by the CSAB.
What are preprints?
Preprints are preliminary, unpublished, non-peer-reviewed versions of scholarly papers that precede publication and can act as an early indication of research. Preprints reside on preprint servers, online repositories that usually cover a set of subject domains and allow for dissemination, laying claim to an idea, and helping to collect feedback prior to submission. Some preprints may get submitted and accepted for publication, while other preprints may never be submitted or accepted for publication and will remain as the preprint version. Preprints allow authors to showcase their research, make a paper discoverable earlier in the publication process, and are an avenue for finding research collaborators. Preprints differ from articles in press in that preprints are not peer-reviewed and have not been accepted for publication.
Preprints coverage policy
Scopus selects its collection of preprints based on (but not limited to) the following criteria for preprint servers:
Usefulness to the research community: Recognized either for its broad coverage or as serving a specific subject domain
Maturity status: Scope, preservation and storage plan, availability of curation and retraction processes, and documentation
Metadata quality: Should contain most major bibliographic elements, such as preprint title, unique identifier (preferably DOI), abstract, language, publication date, author(s), author affiliation(s) and references to ensure preprint discoverability
Preprint servers included are:
*Due to changes to the eLife publication model at the beginning of 2023, all eLife papers since publication year 2023 are in the Scopus preprints collection. All content from publication year 2022 and before, as well as the eLife journal profile and its metrics, remains in the Scopus journal collection.
New preprint servers are considered for inclusion on a case-by-case basis.
The Scopus collection covers preprints posted from 2017 onward for all selected preprint servers and does not include archives from earlier years. Documents uploaded to the preprint servers that are not preprints (e.g., accepted manuscripts or published articles) are excluded from the Scopus collection of preprints. Only the most recent version of each preprint is displayed.
Metrics
There are no metrics for preprints, and preprints do not contribute to any Scopus metrics of the main peer-reviewed content collection curated by the CSAB, such as citation counts, document counts, h-index, CiteScore, etc. Preprints do not contribute whatsoever to the metrics of the author profile and are available in author profiles in a separate tab. Preprint-only author profiles are not displayed.
What is Scopus AI?
Scopus AI combines generative AI with content from the publisher-neutral abstract and citation database Scopus, curated by the CSAB. Included content Scopus AI is powered by the trusted Scopus content collection. The following types of Scopus content are included in Scopus AI:
Content with publication year 2003 and later
Source types including journals, conferences, books and book series
Document types including articles, conference papers, reviews, book chapters, short surveys, books, data papers and reports
Data elements including abstracts, titles, author and indexed keywords, total reference counts and cited-by counts. Full-text articles are not used.
Not included in Scopus AI are:
Trade journals source type
Retracted items
Content that is not in the Scopus main database (such as preprints)
Acceptable and responsible use of Scopus AI
With Scopus AI, we follow a transparent approach aligned with Elsevier Responsible AI Principles:
We can explain how our solution works.
We consider the real-world impact of our solution on people.
We take action to prevent the creation or reinforcement of unfair bias.
We create accountability through human oversight.
We respect privacy and champion robust data governance.
The Large Language Model (LLM) in Scopus AI is hosted in a private environment. There is no data exchange or use of the Scopus AI data to train public generative AI models. Although Scopus AI leverages trusted Scopus content and has undergone rigorous engineering and testing, Scopus AI is not fault tolerant. Generative AI models can sometimes produce misleading or inaccurate results. We recommend exercising expertise and discretion before incorporating Scopus AI outputs into official documents like dissertations or manuscripts. It is essential to understand that Scopus AI is not designed to offer legal, financial or medical advice.
As new content is continuously added to the Scopus database and the overall system gets updated, the responses to questions generated by Scopus AI will likely change over time.
Scopus AI responses are generated in real time and there is no human author review of every response. Scopus AI outputs are therefore not suitable for citing. Instead, we advise citing the papers referenced by Scopus AI within your work.
Technological and legal development of generative AI is fast, and for the use of a generative AI tool like Scopus AI in research, we strongly encourage following the applicable policies at your institution and laws in your region.