The Scopus journal evaluation process from the perspective of the Subject Chair

1. The Scopus journal evaluation process from the perspective of the Subject Chair World-Class Scientific Journals – 2014: Improving quality and expanding presence in the world information resources Moscow, May 19 – 21, 2014 Karen Holland Editor in Chief Nurse Education in Practice ( Elsevier Journal ) Subject Chair (Nursing & Health Professions & Education ) SCOPUS Content Selection Advisory Board (CSAB)

2. Layout of the presentation Scopus evaluation process – in short Role of the Subject Chair Key review areas • Journal Policy • Quality of Content • Journal Standing • Regularity • Online availability Case study Resources for Editors

3. SCOPUS : How do journals get included ?In Brief ! • The Scopus Content Selection Advisory Board ( CSAB ) • http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/csab/members • Selection system is similar to EES but called STEP • http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/scopus-in-detail/content-selection • Subject Chairs : Role is an Editorial one - managing the review process , supporting decisions and giving feedback to Elsevier • We can also see journals included in Scopus at the Scimago web –site : • http://roscardio.ru/en/cardiovascular-therapy-and-prevention.html • http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=russia&tip=jou

4. Scopus: Role of Subject Chair • Scopus CSAB : 14 Subject Chairs in identified Specialist fields • Subject Chairs are the individuals responsible for the final decision to include a journal into Scopus or not • Subject Chairs use the STEP Programme to evaluate journals submitted • STEP Programme has been developed over past 4 years –involving continual feedback from Subject Chairs and CSAB members • Being a Subject Chair is at times very challenging but also rewarding • Subject Chairs are in essence responsible for the ‘quality’ of Scopus content and therefore the ‘science’ available for researchers worldwide

5. Subject Chair : process of evaluation • Journals are submitted to the Scopus Content team and following initial evaluation against set criteria are then forwarded to the relevant Subject Chair • The Journal will then appear in the Subject Chair Desk Top in STEP 3.3. ( See in Case Study ) • Other Reviewers can be invited to review the journal but in the main the Subject Chairs undertake this work using their expertise , experience as editors and expertise in evaluation of journals in the STEP system • The journal review is undertaken within key categories

6. Making Decisions : Subject Chair role • The Advice to journal editors and publishers : • Track record of Publication over 2 years ( no submission until published 2 years ) • Evidence of consistency and frequency of publication on time : also important is the actual content of the papers and their authorship skills and knowledge • Evidence of editorial clarity of purpose : aims and scope , direction of the journal; editorial board, editors , author guidance, visibility for potential authors , web-site quality and accessibility, English language abstracts and / or articles ( Case study *)

7. The Subject Chair Review : Key areas • Titlereview • Journal Policy • Quality of Content • Journal Standing • Regularity • Online availability

8. Journal Policy : Key evaluation ( 1) • Convincing editorial scope : Is the editorial policy of this title, as stated in the aims & scope, convincing and of relevance for Scopus users? ( Not convincing Poor Fair Good Excellent ) • Level of peer-review - All titles that are covered by Scopus should be peer-reviewed. There are different levels of peer-review:  (1) Main editor peer review - Only one (or two) main editor(s) review and select all the submitted articles for each issue. • (2) Open peer review - Reviewers are aware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also aware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue. • (3) Single-blind peer review - Reviewers are aware of the identity of the authors, but authors are unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue. • (4) Double-blind peer- review - Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.

9. Journal Policy ( 2) • Diversity in geographic distribution of editors : Whether the diversity in the editors’ regional origin is appropriate, depends on the aims & scope of a title. A subject area dedicated to a regionally relevant topic (geography or history for example) may not have a global community of researchers; and a low regional diversity among editors would be in line with the editorial concept. On the other hand, in the case of a general journal with editors only from one faculty or country, the regional diversity is likely not to be in line with the editorial concept.  • ( No editorial board ;Regional diversity of editorial board is not in line with editorial concept ;Regional diversity of editorial board is partly in line with editorial concept ;Regional diversity of editorial board is entirely in line with editorial concept)

10. Journal Policy ( 3) • Diversity in geographic distribution of authors Whether the diversity in the authors’ regional origin is appropriate, depends on the aims & scope of a title. A subject area dedicated to a regionally relevant topic (geography or history for example) may not have a global community of researchers; and a low regional diversity among authors would be in line with the editorial concept. On the other hand, in the case of a general journal with authors only from one faculty or country, the regional diversity is likely not to be in line with the editorial concept.  • Regional diversity of authors is not in line with editorial concept Regional diversity of authors is partly in line with editorial concept Regional diversity of authors is entirely in line with editorial concept

11. Quality of content : Evaluation ( 1) • Academic contribution to field To what extent does this title make a unique contribution compared with the existing literature in the field? • (Extremely poor; Poor ;Fair ;Good ;Extremely good ) • Clarity of abstracts The abstract is the only information, next to article title and keywords, that is displayed in Scopus. Therefore the quality of the abstract is of high importance. Both the content (whether it gives a useful summary of the article) and the language (whether it is written in correct English) should be assessed. • ( No abstracts ; Abstract non-English ; Abstracts in English, but unclear and/or not enough detail ; Abstracts in English, fairly clear and/or fairly detailed ; Abstracts in English, very clear and very detailed )

12. Quality of content ( 2) • Quality of and conformity with stated aims Is the actual content of the title (see sample documents) in line with the stated aims & scope of the title? ( Extremely poor ;Poor ;Fair ;Good ;Extremely good ) • Readability of articles The readability of the sample articles can be assessed using two criteria: Language (language should be clear and without mistakes) Layout and format (the layout should be clear and the quality of figures should be good) • ( Extremely poor ;Poor; Fair ;Good ;Extremely good )

13. Journal Standing : Evaluation • Citedness of journal Based on the citation information provided, how well cited is this title compared to other titles in the field?   • (Scored by Scopus team; Not cited ;Poorly cited ;Fairly cited ;Well cited; Extremely well cited ) • Editor standing The scientific impact of an editor based on the citation information revealed in their Scopus profile could be one indication of editor standing, as can other information from home pages or curriculum vitae. How do you rate the standing of the editor(s) in the academic community? • Very poor standing: Poor standing :Fair standing ;Good standing ; Extremely good standing • Main Handling Editors: Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3

14. Regularity : Evaluation • Regularity of publication Is the publication delayed, based on the announced publication schedule? • Scored by Scopus team : By 4 or more issues delayed ;By 2-3 issues delayed ; By 1 issue delayed ; Published on time • Poor Fair Good Extremely good

15. On-Line availability : Evaluation • Content available online Scopus is not only used to find relevant literature, but – ideally – also to link out to it. Therefore the electronic availability of the actual content on a homepage is a clear advantage. • Scored by Scopus team : Recent content not available online ; Recent content available online ; English-language homepage available ; (Scopus gives exposure to a significant share of non-English-language content. When linking out from the record or abstract to the full-text paper, users will find it helpful if the homepage has an English navigation, so they can understand further information.) • Scored by Scopus team : Not in English ;Partly in English ;Entirely in English ; • Elsevier assesses the quality of journal homepages mainly based on two aspects. • (1) Does it contain crucial information about a journal such as: scope and aims, ISSN (and E-ISSN), editorial board members, scientific society, subscription details, etc.? • (2) Is it professionally designed with aspects on: how intuitively does it give the above-mentioned information? Scored by Scopus team : No homepage available ;Extremely poor ;Poor ;Fair ;Good ;Extremely good

16. Case study : • Russian Journal of Cardiology http://roscardio.ru/en/russian-journal-of-cardiology.html • Evaluation of this journal : use the Scopus framework • How does it evaluate for inclusion in Scopus ? Based on what is visible to us and not the complete STEP system documentation and detailed information from the proposer of the Journal for Scopus inclusion . • Journal PolicyQuality of ContentJournal StandingRegularityOnline availability • What is the general view ?

17. Resources for Editors • http://www.elsevier.com/editors • http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/home#journal-editors • http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/toolkit • http://publicationethics.org/ • http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines • http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors

18. Спасибо! Thank you & Questions Look out for more developments from Scopus @ http://blog.scopus.com/ http://twitter.com/Scopus