In recent years, Scopus-indexed publications have become a key benchmark for assessing scholarly merit and institutional excellence. Academic institutions and regulatory authorities rely on these metrics to evaluate research quality, global recognition and institutional reputation. However, the growing emphasis raises questions about its validity as a measure of excellence.
Scopus, operated by private Dutch publisher Elsevier, is one of the largest abstract and citation databases of peer-reviewed literature covering a wide range of disciplines. It offers a suite of metrics often used to assess the research output of individuals and institutions. Its appeal lies in its promise of global standardisation, objective evaluation and enhanced institutional prestige. Institutions with a high number of Scopus-indexed publications enjoy elevated status, attract greater funding, and climb higher in national and global rankings. However, this reliance is not without controversy.
While Scopus-indexed journals are generally perceived to adhere to rigorous peer review processes and stringent quality control, this is not entirely true. Some journals, particularly those driven by profit motives, offer expedited publication for authors willing to pay substantial fees, undermining Scopus’s credibility.
The insistence on Scopus publications risks marginalising research that does not align with its criterions. Groundbreaking work, especially in specialised or emerging fields, may be better suited to non-Scopus or regional journals that cater to local communities and address pressing regional issues. Dismissing such research solely for lacking Scopus indexing undermines the diversity of scholarly discourse. In addition, the pressure to publish in Scopus-indexed journals has led to unethical practices like plagiarism, data fabrication and ‘salami slicing’ (dividing a study into multiple smaller papers). Of late, paper retractions have risen, and shockingly, even faculty from top-notch institutions such as IISc and IIT resort to malpractices. A notable example is the 2012 hacking of the Elsevier Editorial System and a scholar named Hyung-In Moon, with 24 retractions, managed to ‘peer review’ his own paper.
The excessive focus on Scopus publications has sparked criticism from scholars arguing it undermines academic inquiry’s true spirit. They advocate for a more holistic approach to evaluating research that considers not only the quantity of publications but also their societal impact, innovation and interdisciplinarity. They warn the current system risks stifling creativity and discouraging risk-taking. It could also aggravate existing inequalities in academia. Researchers at well-funded institutions typically have better access to resources, collaborators and funding. In contrast, scholars from less privileged backgrounds may struggle to meet these standards despite having valuable and original contributions. This disparity raises questions about the equity of the current system and whether it genuinely serves the broader goals of knowledge creation and dissemination.
The assumption that Scopus-indexed papers are inherently superior is increasingly being challenged. The quality of a research paper depends on the research question, methodology and findings, not merely the index in which it is published. Numerous high-quality regional and niche journals not indexed in Scopus publish significant research addressing local or specialised topics. Ignoring such work solely because it is not Scopus-indexed can diminish the diversity of academic discourse.
Undoubtedly, financial factors also play a big role in the Scopus model. Elsevier, the parent company of Scopus, operates as a for-profit entity, charging substantial fees for journal subscriptions, article processing charges (APCs) for open-access publications, and access to its database. The high costs pose significant challenges for researchers. APCs for Springer Nature cost a bomb; access fees for Nature Communications and Scientific Reports are at $5,000-$6,300. Journals that charge submission fees, especially for ‘fast-track’ reviews, charge about $7,000 for the fastest option. Since Scopus publications play an important role in faculty hiring and career advancement, faculty members end up paying exorbitant fees.
Elsevier’s parent company, RELX Group, reported approximately £2.7 billion in revenues from its scientific, technical and medical divisions in 2022, with profit margins exceeding 35 percent. This raises concerns about if the focus on Scopus truly serves the interests of the academic community or primarily benefits large conglomerates.
On the positive side, the focus on Scopus publications has driven many academics to engage in high-quality research, collaborate internationally and seek funding for studies likely to be accepted by Scopus-indexed journals. This drive can enhance scholarly visibility, bolster institutional reputations, and contribute to the global body of knowledge. In this context, Scopus can be a valuable tool for encouraging excellence in research. So, while criticising the financial motives behind Scopus publications, it is also essential to recognise the complex academic publishing ecosystem. The services publishers provide are crucial for maintaining the integrity and accessibility of academic research.
Hence, balancing the profitability of academic publishing with its broader goals of advancing knowledge and fostering innovation is a challenge that requires immediate attention. Achieving this balance is imperative for a creditable academia.
John J Kennedy
Professor and Dean, CHRIST (Deemed) University, Bengaluru
(Views are personal)
(johnjken@gmail.com)