Scopus CSAB Journal Removal Criteria

 May 18, 2026

https://futurity-publishing.com/how-scopus-removes-journals/

https://academicjournalreview.blogspot.com/2023/04/scopus-criteria-for-journal-being.html

https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/891058/ACADLIBSCARTImportance-of-high-quality-contentWEB.pdf

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.