What Editors Need to Know About the Real Evaluation Process
Length: ~29,000 characters (with spaces)
Estimated reading time: ~20–22 minutes
In this article, you’ll learn:
- What does it really take to apply for Scopus indexing?
- Why do even “good” journals get rejected?
- How can a journal increase its citation performance?
- What should an international-ready journal website look like?
- And – is this the right year to submit your journal for evaluation?
Table of Contents
- Indexing in Scopus or Web of Science Is Not Just a Checkbox
- Part 1. What Actually Happens When You Submit a Journal for Indexing in Scopus or Web of Science
- Minimum Requirements: The First Screening
- What Happens If Your Journal Doesn’t Meet the Minimum Requirements
- Part 2. Minimum Requirements: What Gets Filtered Out Immediately
- Regularity, ISSN, and Peer Review
- Policies and Website Structure
- Language and Article Metadata Structure
- The Role of the Journal Website and Technical Requirements
- Part 3. How Expert Evaluation Works in Scopus (and How It Differs from the Formal Check)
- The 14 Scopus Criteria – It’s Not Just a Checklist
- What Experts Are Looking For: Logic and Expectations
- Part 4. Why Journals Fail Expert Evaluation: It All Comes Down to One Indicator
- Part 5. Why the Criteria Matter – Even If You’re Not Submitting This Year
- Conclusion: Indexing Isn’t a Checkbox – It’s a Growth Strategy
Indexing in Scopus or Web of Science Is Not Just a Checkbox
For many editors, getting a journal indexed in Scopus or Web of Science is seen as a final milestone – a status symbol, something to “tick off.” But in reality, the decision to apply for indexing is far more strategic and far-reaching than it seems.
Scopus and Web of Science only accept journals that already demonstrate a sustainable publishing model:
- consistent and reliable publishing frequency,
- high-quality scientific content,
- transparent peer review processes,
- and clear positioning in the scholarly landscape.
But it’s important to understand:
- If your journal isn’t ready → it will be rejected.
- If your journal is “formally compliant” but not truly mature → it will be rejected.
- And even if it gets accepted, but fails to sustain performance → it may be delisted within 2–3 years.
That’s why the real task is not simply to apply. The real task is to build a system that works – before and after indexing.
And that’s exactly what this article is about. I’ll walk you through:
- how Scopus and Web of Science make decisions,
- what evaluators are actually looking for,
- and which mistakes even experienced editorial teams often make.
Whether you’re preparing to apply or simply working toward international visibility, this article will help you focus on the things that truly matter.
Part 1. What Actually Happens When You Submit a Journal for Indexing in Scopus or Web of Science
Minimum Requirements: The First Screening
From the outside, the indexing process seems straightforward: you fill out an application, submit your journal’s website – and wait. But in reality, it’s much more structured and rigorous.
Both Scopus and Web of Science use a two-stage evaluation model. The first step is a basic eligibility check. Only journals that pass this initial filter move on to expert evaluation. In Scopus, this first step is handled by the Content Selection & Policy team. In Web of Science, it’s called Editorial Triage – a preliminary editorial screening that determines whether the journal is ready for full evaluation.
So, what exactly is assessed at this stage? Primarily:
- Does the journal publish on a regular basis, and is there enough content to evaluate?
- Does it have a valid ISSN, registered with the international ISSN Centre?
- Is the peer review process clearly described on the website?
- Does the journal provide a publicly accessible publication ethics policy?
- Are article titles and abstracts available in English?
- Is the website accessible, easy to navigate, and are published articles available online?
What Happens If Your Journal Doesn’t Meet the Minimum Requirements
If your journal fails to meet even one of the baseline criteria, the application is declined at this initial stage – and never reaches expert evaluation.
Interestingly, neither Scopus nor Web of Science impose a formal “resubmission embargo”. If a journal is rejected at this preliminary stage, it may resubmit its application at any time – even within a month – provided that the issues have been addressed.
But here’s the catch: Many journals resubmit without actually fixing the core problems. They correct surface-level items, but leave the deeper structural weaknesses untouched. The result? A second rejection – and editorial fatigue. That’s why submitting to an indexing database shouldn’t be treated as a checkbox exercise. It’s not just a technical step – it’s a moment of transition for the journal. And that means you have to be truly ready.
You can find the complete list of Scopus’ selection criteria here: Scopus Content Policy and Selection. And for Web of Science, the full editorial process and selection standards are available here: Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria.
Part 2. Minimum Requirements: What Gets Filtered Out Immediately
Regularity, ISSN, and Peer Review
At the first stage, both Scopus and Web of Science assess journals based on a set of formal criteria – a kind of technical filter. This step is designed to screen out applications that do not meet basic publishing standards. If a journal fails to meet even one of these key conditions, it is not passed on for expert evaluation and is rejected at the initial stage.
So, what are the essential baseline requirements?
First, the journal must demonstrate consistent publication over time – typically at least two years. This doesn’t just mean that the journal has existed for that long. It must have a stable publishing pattern: adherence to the announced publication frequency, a complete and accessible archive, and no missed or skipped issues.
Second, the journal must have a valid ISSN, registered with the International ISSN Centre. This is a mandatory element – it officially identifies the journal as a recognized and trackable publication.
Language and Article Metadata Structure
When it comes to the publications themselves, every article must be accompanied by bibliographic information in English. This includes:
- article titles,
- abstracts,
- keywords,
- as well as author names and affiliations.
The main text of the article may be written in any language – this is not a barrier to submission. However, already at the expert evaluation stage, the amount and quality of English-language content becomes a critical factor.
Policies and Website Structure
Let’s move on to public-facing editorial policies. This doesn’t just refer to the publication ethics statement, as many editors tend to think. The journal’s website must clearly and separately present the following policy documents:
- Editorial policy – including the journal’s mission, scope, aims, and editorial principles.
- Ethics policy – outlining standards for authors and reviewers, and the journal’s approach to academic misconduct.
- Peer review policy – describing the peer review model used (single-, double-, or open-blind), timelines, and editorial stages.
- Open access and archiving policy – explaining how readers access articles and what systems are used to archive journal content.
- Author guidelines – detailing requirements for manuscript submission, formatting, and article structure.
In addition, Scopus now encourages journals to adopt a Generative AI (GenAI) policy, covering the use of AI tools in content creation, peer review, and publication workflows. Although this is not yet a strict requirement, such policies signal transparency and strengthen trust in the journal’s editorial practices.
The Role of the Journal Website and Technical Requirements
Finally, let’s talk about the journal’s website. It’s not just a “storefront” – it’s the central platform through which the maturity of your entire editorial system is assessed.
The website must be:
- accessible,
- stable,
- easy to navigate,
- with a complete archive,
- and clearly presented information about the editorial board and editorial policies.
But that’s just the beginning. A journal’s website also needs to be technically optimized for discoverability and indexing. This means:
- it should be structured for accurate indexing in Google Scholar;
- it must support Crossref metadata and DOI integration;
- it should include HTML and XML markup, to allow automated data harvesting by indexing services.
While these aren’t yet formal minimum requirements in Scopus or Web of Science, they directly impact the visibility, citability, and future development of the journal. That’s why your website shouldn’t be treated as an afterthought – but rather as your journal’s main channel of scientific communication.
Part 3. How Expert Evaluation Works in Scopus (and How It Differs from the Formal Check)
The 14 Scopus Criteria – It’s Not Just a Checklist
If a journal passes the initial eligibility check, it moves on to the second stage: a full expert evaluation conducted by Scopus’s independent Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). At this point, it’s no longer a checklist. It’s not an automatic process. The journal is evaluated as a coherent system, where not only individual elements matter – but how they work together.
If the first stage asks, “Is it there?”, then the expert stage asks, “How well does it work?” and “Does it add value to the scholarly ecosystem?”
At this level, Scopus applies a framework of 14 selection criteria, grouped into five major categories (you can find the full breakdown on Elsevier’s official page: Content policy and selection – Elsevier):
- Journal Policy
- Content
- Journal Standing (including citations and reputation)
- Publishing Regularity
- Online Availability
What Experts Are Looking For: Logic and Expectations
The most important takeaway: It’s not just about checking off individual categories. The CSAB looks at the journal as a whole – and asks:
Does it fulfil its stated editorial mission?
- Are its editorial and peer review processes stable and transparent?
Does it publish work with clear scholarly value and citation potential?
- Is it engaged with the international academic community – through its authors, reviewers, and editors?
- Is it accessible, understandable, and professionally presented online?
Scopus rarely provides detailed reasons for rejection at this stage. That’s because the causes are usually complex. It’s not about a single mistake – it’s about the overall impression: Is this journal ready to be part of the global scientific ecosystem?
Especially important: some of the most influential factors are not explicitly stated in the rules, but they are always considered. For example: the quality of English in articles, presence of ORCID IDs for authors, whether the actual content of the journal aligns with its declared scope and mission.
Expert evaluation is a test of scholarly, editorial, and communicative maturity. This is no longer about “Do you have a website, ISSN, and DOIs?” The real question becomes – Can this journal:
- attract and retain high-quality authors?
- publish meaningful and relevant research?
- be cited and respected in its field?
- function on a consistent basis – not as a “seasonal” or chaotic operation?
Part 4. Why Journals Fail Expert Evaluation: It All Comes Down to One Indicator
The #1 Reason for Rejection – Lack of Citation Potential
When Scopus or Web of Science declines a journal’s application for indexing, the editor usually receives a generic response like: "Does not meet the quality criteria." But behind this vague phrasing lies one central reason in most cases: The journal does not demonstrate potential for stable and visible citation activity – in other words, it lacks citability.
Citation performance is not simply a formal checkbox – it’s the baseline metric around which all other criteria revolve. Scopus and Web of Science are commercial analytical databases. Their value – both to the academic community and to the market – depends on the quality of the content they index and their ability to track academic influence through citations.
If your journal doesn’t contribute to this value – if it’s unlikely to be cited, referenced, or analyzed – then it simply does not serve the purpose of these platforms. That’s why everything your editorial team does – from content strategy to peer review workflows – must, in one way or another, support the future citation performance of your articles. And yes – Scopus experts consider this carefully, even if your journal is not yet indexed.
Citation Begins Long Before Indexing
Many editors believe that citation-building starts after their journal is included in an indexing database. In reality, it’s the opposite: Citation is the argument you bring to Scopus or Web of Science – not the result of being indexed.
If your journal has already:
been publishing for 2-3 years,
- made its content available in open access,
- but its articles are barely cited – or not cited at all,
- then that raises immediate red flags for the expert evaluation team.
Even more important is where those citations appear. If you are applying to Web of Science, your articles should already be visible in (and ideally cited by) journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. The same logic applies to Scopus.
What Drives Citation Potential – Even Before Indexing?
1. Language of Publication
If your journal publishes in a local or regional language, your potential readership shrinks dramatically. Formally, Scopus and Web of Science do not require articles to be in English – but all citation analytics are built on global flows, not within isolated national ecosystems.
2. Topical Relevance and Demand
If your articles cover topics that are not interesting to the international scholarly community, they will not be cited – even if they are well written and formatted. Topical relevance must be part of your journal’s strategy: track what is being cited in your field, and steer your thematic focus in that direction.
3. Strong Authors and International Experts
The stronger the scientific profile of your authors, the more likely their work will be noticed and cited. That’s why it’s critical to work with editors who have global academic networks, and to invite respected, influential contributors – not just loyal or convenient ones.
4. Technical Readiness of the Website
If your site is not optimized for indexing, your articles won’t be discoverable in Google Scholar or other aggregators – and potential citers won’t find your work. Good visibility requires structured metadata: titles, abstracts, author names, affiliations, DOIs, ORCID links, and proper HTML layout – all of which influence how well your content is indexed and cited.
Other Common Reasons for Rejection
Weak Scholarly Content
Just because an article is formally formatted doesn’t mean it’s a high-quality academic publication. Scopus and Web of Science experts can usually tell with one glance at recent issues whether the journal has a strong editorial review system.
Weak content doesn’t necessarily mean incorrect – but often reflects a lack of depth or relevance. Most common examples:
- Trivial or routine topics with no real research novelty
Descriptive papers with no analysis or critical framework
- No justification for relevance – especially a lack of references to recent literature
One of the most frequently overlooked red flags is the use of outdated references. If authors primarily cite sources that are 10+ years old, it suggests the paper is not engaging with current scientific discourse. And if that trend is seen across many articles, the journal starts to resemble a platform for formal reports or student papers, rather than a dynamic academic resource.
If you want your journal to be seen as credible and impactful, start by aligning your editorial policy and author guidelines with real academic standards:
- Require up-to-date references,
- Structure submissions around critical frameworks,
- Focus on recent international publications in your field.
Local Focus and Lack of Internationalization
If a journal is fully localized – in terms of authorship, language, editorial structure, and content – it is likely to be perceived as an internal project of a specific organization, city, or country. Even if the journal appears professionally produced on the surface, Scopus and Web of Science expect it to engage with the international academic community. Importantly, these databases do not require that a journal be “international” by origin – but they do expect it to be international in its engagement.
So what does this mean in practice?
- Your editorial board and editorial office must include experts from multiple countries, with verifiable academic profiles (e.g., in Scopus, Web of Science, or ORCID).
- Your website should not just list names, but also provide: affiliations, short bios, photos, and links to academic or professional profiles – or institutional pages.
- Your publications must feature a noticeable proportion of international authors – especially if your journal claims to be “open to a global audience.”
- Your website should be fully accessible in English. If your articles are published in multiple languages, all core site elements – including the mission, editorial policies, submission guidelines, and instructions for authors – must also be available in English. This is the only way to make your journal understandable and accessible to global audiences and to Scopus experts.
Unstable Volume and Irregular Publishing Frequency
While regularity of publication is a formal minimum requirement, evaluators also look at whether the journal maintains a predictable and sustainable publishing volume of scholarly content. Many editorial teams underestimate this factor. For example:
- A journal claims to be quarterly, but issues fluctuate wildly – from 10 to 20 articles per issue.
- One year has 4 issues, another has 2, then 4 again.
- Some articles are post-dated, or publication dates don’t match the actual issue release.
Another common issue is low annual output. Journals publishing just 30–40 articles a year often blame limited budgets, print constraints, or editorial capacity. But low output dramatically reduces citation potential. Fewer articles = fewer citation opportunities → and fewer arguments in favor of indexing.
The best way to determine the right volume for your journal? Analyze similar indexed journals in your field. Look at journals from other countries with comparable focus, format, or history. Use them as benchmarks – or even as role models.
Your Website: A Barrier or a Launchpad?
Your journal’s website is not just a “business card” or a box to tick under technical requirements. It is:
- your communication platform,
- your data source for aggregators and search engines,
- and the first thing an expert sees when evaluating your journal.
If your website has a chaotic structure, too many confusing sections, poor navigation, or an outdated design – it will be read as a signal of weak editorial control.
What Matters:
- A clear and simple structure. Sections should be logical, non-repetitive.
- All key editorial policies (mission, peer review process, ethics, open access, author guidelines) should be easy to locate and access.
- The archive must be complete and accessible, with all links functioning properly and correct publication dates.
- Articles should be published not only in PDF, but also in HTML or XML formats – this is critical for indexing in Google Scholar, Crossref, Dimensions, and other platforms.
Ideally, your website should:
- Have proper DOI and ORCID integration
- Support structured archiving systems for automated metadata harvesting
To benchmark your site, look at how major publishers structure theirs – Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and others. It’s not about copying style – but learning from proven, scalable approaches that work.
When What You Say and What You Do Don’t Match: How Editorial Teams Undermine Themselves
One of the most common – and least recognized – reasons for rejection is a misalignment between what a journal claims to be and what it actually does. An expert opens the site and immediately sees:
- All authors come from one country.
- The editorial office and advisory board are composed almost entirely of people from one institution.
- The English version of the website is just a literal translation – not adapted for a global readership.
This raises an obvious question: Who is this journal really for?
If the journal says it accepts submissions from around the world, but in two years has published no articles from international authors – that undermines its claim.
If the journal claims to cover all scientific disciplines, but publishes only 40 papers a year – evaluators ask: How is that even possible?
Common Warning Signs:
- Author diversity: Journal claims broad focus, but all authors are local
- Editorial board: No public profiles or track record
- Scope vs. volume: Journal claims interdisciplinary coverage, but publishes <50 papers/year
- Structure: Journal looks like a large publication – but doesn’t operate like one
The broader the claim, the higher the expectation. Many regional journals try to cover everything – often to “keep” submissions from a single university. But the wider the declared scope, the higher the bar for quality and volume. If your journal publishes 50–70 papers a year, you’ll struggle to convincingly cover all of physics, or medicine, or economics.
A better strategy? Niche specialization. Journals with a clear and focused scope:
- are easier to promote,
- build recognition faster,
- and generate more consistent, stable citations.
Across all of these issues, one red thread runs through them: Your journal must be useful – as a source of knowledge, as part of the research infrastructure, as a channel for global communication. In academia, value is measured through citability. If no one wants to read, discuss, or cite your articles – then your journal does not create value for Scopus or Web of Science. Everything else –
- relevant content,
- trustworthy editorial processes,
- an accessible website,
- and a mission that matches reality –
supports that single goal.
Part 5. Why the Criteria Matter – Even If You’re Not Submitting This Year
How Scopus Criteria Support Growth
Many editors say: “We’re not planning to apply to Scopus yet – we’re still getting things in order.” And that’s a perfectly reasonable position. But here’s the problem: If you’re not aligning your journal with these criteria now, you’re likely losing years of potential growth. The Scopus and Web of Science criteria are not just selection thresholds. They are, in essence, a universal coordinate system for building a strong, respected academic journal – whether or not you’re planning to apply yet.
The Earlier You Start, the Easier It Will Be to Apply
So what happens when you follow these criteria early on?
1. You Gain Author Trust
Authors are more likely to submit to journals where things are transparent: clear processes, intuitive site structure, readable publications, visible policies. This builds a steady submission pipeline – which improves quality and reach.
2. Citation Growth Begins
If you publish on timely topics, in English, with professional formatting and open access – you naturally start gaining visibility among international authors. Citations don’t come from databases. They come from quality and accessibility.
3. You Build Editorial Culture
Clear rules, author guidelines, regular publishing schedules, updated websites – all of this creates a journal environment that’s easier to manage and more respected professionally.
4. You’re Ready When the Time Comes
You won’t have to rush when your institution or funder suddenly asks for indexing. You’ll have the archive. You’ll have the structure. You’ll have the experience. You won’t have to “adjust for Scopus.” You’ll already be ready.
Even if you're not submitting this year, start managing your journal as if you're preparing for evaluation. Look at your journal through an evaluator’s lens: Is it focused and consistent? Where is its real strength? Are you just “publishing,” or are you building value?
Conclusion: Indexing Isn’t a Checkbox – It’s a Growth Strategy
A Systemic Approach vs. the Checklist Mentality
Indexing in Scopus or Web of Science is not a formality. It’s not a trophy. It’s a transition – to a higher level of academic operations, where journals are expected to demonstrate maturity, consistency, and real scientific value. And as tempting as it may be to search for shortcuts or templates – there is really only one proven strategy: Build a journal that works as a system.
A journal that:
- publishes high-quality and relevant research,
- has a clear, transparent editorial infrastructure,
- is open to the international community,
- and evolves as a living scholarly project
→ will inevitably be noticed.
Everything else – design, platform, metadata, editorial board, even language – are just tools. They either support your scientific value – or they get in its way.
If you’d like to dive deeper into the official selection standards of Scopus and Web of Science, start here:
Check Your Journal Against the Criteria
Don’t let this remain theoretical. Start with something concrete: Assess where your journal stands right now. Download our free diagnostic checklist based on Scopus and Web of Science criteria – the same one we use in our audits.
If you’d like feedback on your results or want to request a deeper audit – we’re here. No pressure. No commitments. Just a simple first step toward quality, clarity, and confidence.