Advertisement

An analysis of discontinued journals by Scopus

Article

Abstract

Researchers continually strive to communicate their findings to peers, hoping to receive recognition for their contribution in a not-so-distant future. The prevailing idea of “publish or perish” becomes imperative when researchers are applying for competitive grants or academic promotions. Choosing a suitable journal has become an important issue as thousands of journals are available. One of the aspects considered by researchers is the journal’s indexation status. Scopus continuously evaluates journals submitted by publishers for indexation, and later, to verify if quality is maintained. During this re-evaluation process, some publication concerns may be raised at journal or publisher level. Consequently, Scopus periodically issues a list of discontinued journals. However, not all journals update their websites in order to inform readers that they have been discontinued. This study shows that 56 journals that were discontinued in 2016 currently affirm on their websites that they are indexed by Scopus. In addition, another 20 journals discontinued in 2016, which do not specifically state that they are indexed by Scopus, include a widget from SCImago that may generate confusion about their current indexing situation. For some journals it seems that the emphasis is placed more on the publishing end of the business than the dissemination of research findings. This study shows that regular updates are among the responsibilities that editorial teams must maintain to ensure the quality and accuracy of the information posted on journal websites.

Keywords

Scopus SCImago Indexing Journal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the grant Proyecto de Financiamiento Basal (PFB-016).

References

  1. Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., Maher, B., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: Do metrics matter? Nature, 465(7300), 860–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BEIC. (2017). Biblioteca Electronica de Informacion Cientifica. http://www.beic.cl/home/que-es-beic/. Accessed January 2018.
  3. BOE. (2017). Resolucion de 23 de Noviembre de 2017, de la Comision Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora, por la que se publican los criterios especificos aprobados para cada uno de los campos de la evaluacion. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2017/12/01/pdfs/BOE-A-2017-14085.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
  4. Chen, H., Chen, C. H., & Jhanji, V. (2013). Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals. Opthalmology, 230(8), 1697–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CONICYT. (2017). Bases concurso nacional de proyectos Fondecyt Regular 2018. http://www.conicyt.cl/fondecyt/files/2017/06/BASES-CONCURSO-REGULAR-2018.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
  6. DINA. (2017). Reglamento de calificacion y registro de investigadores en ciencia y tecnologia del Sistema nacional de ciencia, tecnologia e innovacion tecnologica – SINACYT. http://docs.google.com/a/concytec.gob.pe/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Y29UY3I0ZWMuZ29iLnBlfG1hbnVhbC1kaW5hfGd4Ojc5NmMyMTVkMDhmZWlzZWE. Accessed January 2018.
  7. Elsevier (2014). Frequently asked questions (FAQ`s): The role of an editor. http://www.elsevier.com/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/95117/SC_FAQ_Role_of_an_Editor_22092014.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
  8. Erfanmanesh, M., Tahira, M., & Abrizah, A. (2017). The publication success of 102 nations in Scopus and the performance of their Scopus-indexed journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33, 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frandsen, T. F. (2017). Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibiliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1513–1528.Google Scholar
  10. Grzybowski, A., Patryn, R., & Jaroslaw, S. (2017). Predatory journals and dishonesty in science. Clinics in Dermatology, 35, 607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Houghton, F. (2017). Ethics in academic publishing: a timely reminder. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(3), 282–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindner, M. D., & Nakamura, R. K. (2015). Examining the predictive validity of NIH peer review process. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0126938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manca, A., Martinez, G., Cugusi, L., Dragone, D., Dvir, Z., & Deriu, F. (2017). Predatory open access in rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 98(5), 1051–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mehrdad, J. (2015). The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detect them. Electronic Physician, 7(2), 1069–1072.Google Scholar
  15. Meneghini, R. (2003). Scielo (scientific electronic library online) project and the visibility of “peripheral” scientific literature. Quimica Nova, 26(2), 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MINCYT (2017). Instituciones habilitadas para biblioteca electronica de ciencia y tecnologia. http://www.biblioteca.mincyt.gob.ar/instituciones/index. Accessed January 2018.
  17. Ramamoorthi, P., & Jeyshanka, R. (2016). Is there a correlation between access to journals and their productive use? Annals of Library and Information Studies, 63, 24–30.Google Scholar
  18. Shokraneh, F., Ilghami, R., Massomi, R., & Amanollahi, A. (2012). How to select a journal to submit and publish your biomedical paper? Bioimpacts, 2(1), 61–68.Google Scholar
  19. SINAB (2017). Listado de recursos electronicos. http://www.bases.unal.edu.co/subjects/databases.php. Accessed January 2018.
  20. Strielkowsky, W. (2018). Setting new publishing standards after the Beall´s list. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 9(8), 108–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wijewickrema, M., & Petras, V. (2017). Journal selection criteria in an open access environment: A comparison between the medicine and social sciences. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias de la VidaUniversidad Andres BelloSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Fundacion Ciencia y VidaSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations