May 18, 2026
https://futurity-publishing.com/how-scopus-removes-journals/
https://academicjournalreview.blogspot.com/2023/04/scopus-criteria-for-journal-being.html
Most
researchers treat Scopus indexing as a stable signal. If a journal appears in
the database, it must be safe to publish there. This assumption is wrong — and
increasingly costly.
In
2025 alone, Scopus discontinued 56 journals. Some of them had been
indexed for over a decade. Some were published by major international houses.
Some held Q2 status with strong percentile rankings until the moment they were
removed.
Understanding
how Scopus actually makes these decisions is not just useful. For anyone
preparing a dissertation defence, seeking academic promotion, or managing a
publication strategy, it is essential.
If
you are still in the process of choosing where to submit, see our guide
on how
to find a Q1–Q2 Scopus journal that actually accepts your paper.
Who
Makes the Decision: The CSAB
Scopus
does not remove journals arbitrarily. All inclusion and removal decisions are
made by the Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) — an
internationally composed group of scientists, researchers, and librarians. The
board includes 17 Subject Chairs, each responsible for a specific academic
domain.
Elsevier
formally states it follows independent CSAB advice. At the same time, Elsevier
explicitly reserves the right to remove or re-evaluate any title without prior
notice — and has exercised this right in documented cases. For context on how
this evaluation process works at the acceptance stage, see how
Scopus evaluates and accepts journals.
Four
Pathways That Trigger Re-Evaluation
A
journal does not end up under review by accident. There are four distinct
mechanisms:
1.
Underperformance on Annual Quantitative Benchmarks
Every
indexed journal is measured annually against three relative metrics, compared
to peer journals in the same subject field:
Self-citation
rate must not be substantially higher than field peers
Total
citation rate must not be substantially lower than field peers
CiteScore
must not be substantially lower than field peers
If
a journal fails all three benchmarks for two consecutive years, it
is automatically escalated to CSAB re-evaluation. Failing in year one triggers
a pre-warning; failing to improve by year two triggers a full review.
2.
Radar — Automated Anomaly Detection
Since
2017, Elsevier has operated a proprietary algorithm called Radar that
scans all indexed journals on a quarterly basis — not just
annually. Radar monitors for signals including:
Sudden,
unexplained surges in article volume
Self-citation
rates exceeding 200% compared to similar journals in the field
Coordinated
mutual citation rings between journals
Unexplained
shifts in geographic author concentration
Coercion
of authors to cite editorial board members
Acceptance
patterns inconsistent with genuine peer review
Abrupt
scope shifts
Abnormally
low abstract and full-text access rates
When
Radar flags a journal, it proceeds directly to CSAB review — there is no
warning window.
3.
Publication Concerns Raised Externally
The
research community, publishers, institutions, and individual academics can
formally report concerns to Scopus. Validated reports also bypass the warning
stage and go directly to CSAB review.
4.
Continuous Curation by the CSAB
The
board conducts ongoing editorial review independent of the other three
pathways. Journals can be flagged for future re-assessment at any point.
The
Re-Evaluation Process: What Actually Happens
Metric-based
cases receive
a pre-warning. The publisher is notified of which benchmarks were not met and
given one year to show improvement in at least one metric. If no improvement
occurs, a full CSAB re-evaluation follows.
Radar
and publication concern cases receive no warning period. They
enter the pipeline immediately.
Once
a journal is under formal re-evaluation:
Content
flow is suspended —
no new articles are indexed during the review period. This is one of the
earliest observable signals.
The
CSAB evaluates the journal against the same five criteria used for all new
title submissions: journal policy, content quality, journal standing,
publishing regularity, and online availability.
The
board requests relevant information from the publisher.
The
outcome is one of three:
A
discontinued journal cannot re-apply for Scopus indexing for five years.
Previously
indexed content generally remains in Scopus as part of the scientific record.
However, in cases of severe, proven misconduct, Elsevier has removed all
previously indexed content — as occurred in 2025 with the Science of
Law journal, where fabricated editorial board members and falsified
publication history were confirmed.
What
"Publication Concerns" Actually Means
“Publication
Concerns” is the most frequently cited reason for discontinuation across all
years. In practice, it covers a specific set of documented violations:
Absence
of genuine peer review — articles accepted without substantive
editorial evaluation
Citation
manipulation —
inflated self-citation, editorial board coercion, coordinated citation
rings
Plagiarism
and self-plagiarism at
scale
Fabricated
editorial infrastructure — non-existent or fake board members
Scope
mismatch —
consistent publication of content outside the stated subject area
Abnormal
article volume growth
Predatory
fee-seeking without
legitimate editorial services
Aggressive
mass solicitation of
manuscripts
Misrepresentation of indexing
status or credential
Research data: Analysis of 317 journals discontinued for Publication Concerns found that over 60% were removed for poor editorial practices, including predatory behaviour. Non-university publishers wereapproximately 11 times more likely to be discontinued than university publishers. Median SJR at the time of discontinuation was 0.17 — placing most removed journals in Q3 or Q4.
For
a detailed breakdown of how predatory journals disguise these practices, see
our guide on how
predatory journals trick researchers — real cases and red flags.
What
the Data Shows: 2022–2025 Removal Patterns
The
pace of removals has increased. In March 2023, the cumulative total of
discontinued titles since Scopus launched stood at 782. By the end of 2025, 56
titles had been removed in that year alone — with monthly updates averaging 7
to 12 removals.
Several
patterns are consistent across this period:
Publisher-cluster
removals are increasing
When
one journal from a publisher is flagged, others from the same house frequently
appear in the same or subsequent update cycles. Multiple titles from the same
Indonesian publisher were removed in a single March 2025 update.
Long-indexed
journals are not immune
Journals
with 10 to 15 years of indexing history have been discontinued. Length of
indexing provides no protection if editorial standards deteriorate.
Radar
and Outlier Behaviour designations are becoming dominant
In
2024–2025, automated detection flagged an increasing share of removed titles —
including journals published by Elsevier itself.
The
terminology is becoming less informative
As
of 2025–2026, Scopus has been replacing specific reason labels (Publication
Concerns, Radar, Outlier Behaviour) with broader terms such as “Discontinuation.” This
reduces visibility for authors trying to assess why a journal was
removed.
Warning
vs. Full Removal: The Practical Difference
The
key distinction is whether the trigger involves metric underperformance or proven
misconduct.
Metric
underperformance typically generates a warning and a 12-month improvement
window. The journal continues to be indexed during this period.
Radar
detection, confirmed publication concerns, or outlier behaviour patterns skip
the warning stage entirely. Content indexing is suspended immediately upon
entering CSAB review.
For
authors, this distinction matters for a practical reason: a journal can appear
active and indexed while simultaneously being under review. The suspension of
content flow is visible in the Scopus source record — but it requires knowing
where to look. For a wider perspective on how researchers are misled
before these signals become visible, see how
researchers get misled by journals that are ‘supposedly’ indexed in Scopus.
Conclusion
Scopus
journal removal is a structured, criteria-based process — not an unpredictable
event. The CSAB applies consistent evaluation standards. Radar monitors every
indexed journal every quarter. Publication concerns can be reported by anyone
in the research community.
What
makes journals vulnerable is always the same set of factors: editorial
shortcuts, metric manipulation, scope drift, and predatory volume growth. These
do not appear suddenly. They develop over time and leave observable signals
before the removal decision is made.
For
researchers and institutions, the implication is straightforward: formal
indexing status is a starting point for journal evaluation, not the conclusion
of it. The question is not only whether a journal is in Scopus today — but
whether it will still be there when it matters.
If
you are currently planning your publication timeline, the guide on how
long it really takes to publish in Scopus Q1–Q2 provides realistic
benchmarks for planning ahead.
