Why, when, and how to get your journals indexed in Scopus | IFERP
The process of getting a journal indexed in Scopus, the world's most popular abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature, can be a challenging and time-consuming task. However, by adhering strictly to global Scopus paper publication standards, ethics, and practices, you can increase your chances of being accepted into the prestigious Scopus database. The importance of being indexed in Scopus cannot be overstated, as it can greatly enhance the visibility, reach and impact of your journal among academic and research communities worldwide. In this article, we'll delve deeper into the best way to get a journal indexed in Scopus and provide valuable insights and tips to help you navigate the process successfully. We will explore the key elements that make a journal eligible for inclusion in the Scopus database, such as the importance of having a rigorous peer-review process, maintaining high standards of quality, and adhering to ethical guidelines. Additionally, we will discuss the various criteria and requirements that your journal can use to improve its chances of being accepted. By following the best practices outlined in this article, your journal can help ensure that your journal meets the rigorous standards set by Scopus and takes its rightful place among the world's top scholarly publications.
Why Were Global Academic Journal Publishing Standards Established?
● To address lapses in publication and research ethics, COPE was established in 1997.
● Its goal is to promote best practices and practical solutions for handling problems.
● It is a nonprofit organization that offers a discussion platform and guidance for scientific editors.
● It was considered that it's crucial to make an effort to outline best practices for scientific publishing ethics.
● These recommendations ought to be beneficial to writers, editors, editorial board members, readers, journal owners, and publishers.
● All technical and scientific academic programs should actively promote intellectual honesty, which may then be utilized to guide publishing ethics and deter wrongdoing.
● These guidelines have been created with that in mind.
● Journals should actively look to seek out information on additional published codes of conduct and ethics standards for researchers.
How Were These Standards Established?
● The guidelines were created from an initial draft created by individual committee members, which underwent significant consultation.
● They include topics such as study design, ethical approval, data analysis, authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, redundant publication, plagiarism, editor responsibilities, media relations, advertising, and how to handle misconduct.
What They Aim To Accomplish
● These recommendations are meant to be indicative rather than mandatory and to change over time.
● It was anticipated that they would be widely used, approved by editors, and improved upon by their users.
Measures To Take To Become A Scopus-Indexed Journal
● Measure #1
Design Of The Research Study & Ethical Compliance
● Good research ought to be ethically acceptable, well-justified, well-planned, and adequately designed.
● It might be improper to perform research at a lesser standard.
● Your journal should implement the following to become considered for a Scopus database indexation -
● Protocols should guide experimental and laboratory research, and written justifications for pilot experiments are required.
● Rather than just gathering data, research processes should aim to provide answers to specific problems.
● All contributors and collaborators, including, if applicable, participants, must thoroughly approve protocols.
● The final protocol ought to be included in the study file.
● It is advisable to reach an early agreement regarding the specific contributions and collaborations, as well as authorship and publication issues.
● To guarantee that there are not too few or too many participants, statistical considerations, including power estimates, should be taken into account early in the study design.
● All experiments involving individuals, medical data, or anonymized human tissues must receive formal, documented ethical approval from a research ethics committee that has been properly constituted.
● The best ethical guidelines should be followed when using human tissues in research.
● Consent should always be obtained with full knowledge.
● However, it might not always be practicable, and in those cases, a properly established research ethics committee should determine if this is morally acceptable.
● International norms should be followed when subjects cannot provide fully informed permission.
● Local licensing laws and national, ethical, and regulatory standards must all be strictly followed when conducting animal research. Different international norms exist.
● All research projects should get formal supervision, typically the duty of the principal investigator; this supervision must involve quality control, frequent
evaluation, and long-term retention (perhaps up to fifteen years) of all records and primary outputs.
● Measure #2
The Thorough Evaluation Of Data Prior To Publication
● Data should be analyzed properly, although improper analysis does not always constitute misbehavior.
● Data fabrication and data falsification do qualify as misconduct. Consider the following measures -
● All data collection and analysis procedures, including any electronic preprocessing, should be completely disclosed; any exclusions should be supported by thorough justifications.
● If the methods of analysis are uncommon, they must be fully described with references.
● Subgroup post hoc analysis is permissible as long as it is acknowledged. It is inappropriate to fail to state that the analysis was post hoc.
● Any issues of bias that have been taken into consideration should be mentioned in the discussion part of a manuscript, along with an explanation of how they were addressed in the study's design and interpretation.
● Measure #3
Strict Guidelines For Authorship
● Although attempts have been made, there is no one definition of authorship that is accepted worldwide.
● Authors should, at the very least, be accountable for their portion of the study.
● The following measures must be implemented -
● The determination of authorship should take into account the intellectual contributions made to the study's idea, design, analysis, and writing, as well as the data collecting and other routine tasks. An individual should not be given authorship credit if there is no task that can be reasonably attributed to them.
● It is helpful to decide early on in the design of a research project which will be attributed as authors, as collaborators, and who will be acknowledged in order to prevent disagreements over the attribution of academic credit.
● All authors are required to publicly accept responsibility for their paper's content. This can be challenging due to the multidisciplinary character of much research, but it can be overcome by the disclosure of individual contributions.
● Given the current uncertainty, it is suggested that authors carefully read the "Advice to Authors" section of the target journal.
● Measure #4
Having A System In Place For Quickly Identifying Potential Forgery & Dealing With Perpetrators With An Iron Hand
● Conflicts of interest include those that may not always be clear, and that may affect the decision-making of the author, reviewers, and editors.
● It has been said that they are those that, if discovered afterward, would cause a logical reader to feel misled or duped.
● They could be financial, scholarly, political, commercial, or personal.
● Employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consulting work, and employee benefits are all examples of "financial" interests.
● As a journal that's looking to get itself Scopus-indexed, you should take note of the following -
● Researchers, authors, and reviewers must disclose any relevant conflicts of interest to editors.
● Editors must inform readers of any pertinent conflicts of interest. Tell the truth if unsure. Editors may occasionally need to withdraw from the assessment and decision-making procedure for the pertinent submission.
● Measure #5
Having An Infalliable Peer-Review System In Place
● Peer reviewers are outside professionals who have been hand-selected by editors to offer written comments with the intention of improving the study.
● The best journals (especially legitimate fast publishing Scopus journals) have different working practices.
● However, some employ open procedures where the name of the reviewer is made public along with the complete or "modified" report.
● Your journal should take heed of the following -
● While suggestions from writers for potential reviewers are frequently helpful, editors shouldn't be obligated to use those made.
● Expert reviewers have a duty of confidentiality when evaluating a manuscript, and this duty extends to the reviewers' coworkers, who may be asked (with the editor's consent) to provide input on particular portions.
● Neither keeping nor copying the submitted manuscript is permitted.
● Reviewers and editors must obtain permission from the authors before using any of the information, justifications, or conclusions.
● Reports from reviewers should be prompt, accurate, polite, impartial, and justified.
● Reviewers should communicate in confidence to the editor if they have any suspicions of wrongdoing.
● Journals should accurately detail their peer review, selection, and appeals processes in their publications.
● Journals ought to routinely assess their acceptance rates and turnaround timeframes.
● Measure #6
Dealing With Duplicate Publications
● Redundant publication happens when the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions are used in two or more works without a complete crossreference. As a journal, you should -
● If additional confirmation is not needed, published studies don't need to be replicated.
● Publishing an abstract in the conference proceedings beforehand does not prevent it from being submitted again for publication; however, full disclosure should be made at the time of submission.
● Re-publication of a manuscript in a different language is permissible as long as the original source is fully and prominently disclosed at the time of submission.
● Authors should disclose information on related papers, even if they are written in a foreign language, and related papers that are currently under consideration.
● Measure #7
Knowing How To Deal With The Issue Of Plagiarism
● The numerous types of plagiarism include the unreferenced use of other people's published and unpublished ideas, such as in research funding applications, and the submission of an entire article under the guise of a "new" author, sometimes in a foreign language.
● It can happen at any point throughout the planning, research, writing, or publication process and affects both print and digital versions.
● As a journal, you should consider the following measure -
● All sources must be acknowledged, and permission must be obtained before using a significant quantity of another person's writing or artwork.
● Measure #8
Regulate & Ensure Editors' Obligations
● The custodians of journals are the editors. Typically, they take over the magazine from the previous editor(s) and always want to turn it over in good condition.
● The majority of editors establish a solid management team and give the publication direction.
● The interests of several stakeholders, including readers, authors, employees, owners, editorial board members, advertising, and the media, must be taken into account.
● Editors should solely consider a paper's significance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope when deciding whether to approve or reject it for publication.
● Studies that contradict earlier research in the publication should be given special consideration.
● Studies with contradictory findings shouldn't be disregarded.
● Before being published, all original studies should undergo peer review, which should fully account for any bias resulting from related or competing interests.
● All articles submitted must be treated as secret by editors.
● Editors are required to take responsibility for swiftly and prominently correcting the record when significant errors are later discovered in an article that has already been published.
● Measure #9
Pay Heed To Media Relations
● The print and broadcast media are becoming more interested in the results of medical research.
● Journalists may attend scientific Scopus conferences where early research findings are presented, which could result in their premature media coverage.
● Writers who are contacted by the media should provide a fair assessment of their work, making sure to distinguish between fact and conjecture.
● It is encouraged to publish a study simultaneously in a peer-reviewed journal and the general public because this generally indicates that sufficient data and supporting evidence have been presented to satisfy knowledgeable and discerning readers.
● Authors should avoid providing additional information to journalists when this is not possible, but they should assist them in writing accurate reports.
● If there are clinical consequences, every effort should be made to guarantee that patients who have contributed to the research are told of the findings by the authors before the general public.
● If journalists are invited to attend scientific events, the organizers should let the authors know.
● Authors might find it useful to be informed of any media policies in place at the journal where their work will be published.
● Measure #10
Playing The Advertising Game With Discernment
● Advertising is an important source of funding for many scientific journals and conferences.
● Reprints could also be profitable.
● Editorial and advertising management must be clearly segregated so that advertising revenue or the potential for reprints does not affect editorial decisions.
● Editors must be willing to publish comments and refuse misleading advertisements, using the same standards as the rest of the journal's content.
● Unless a correction needs to be added, reprints should be reprinted exactly as they were in the original publication.
● Measure #11
Addressing Any Potential Misbehaviours
● The overarching rule confirming wrongdoing is the desire to persuade others to believe something that is untrue.
● As a result, it is important to consider the intention of the participating researcher, author, editor, reviewer, or publisher in addition to the specific act or omission under consideration.
● Deception can occur intentionally, negligently, or with reckless disregard for potential repercussions. Therefore, it follows that "best practise" necessitates complete honesty and full disclosure.
● Codes of practice can only serve to increase awareness.
● Measure #12
Looking Into Sort Of Wrongdoings & Dealing With Them
● When papers raise concerns about misbehavior, editors shouldn't automatically reject them.
They must pursue the matter because it is morally right to. However, it might be challenging to know how to look into and react to potential misbehavior incidents.
● Research publication standards agencies are always prepared to offer advice, but due to legal constraints, they can only do so in cases that are anonymized.
● The editor has the last say on what to do.
● Measure #13
Being Aware Of What To Do When There Are Serious Infractions
● Editors must take all accusations and suspicions of misbehavior seriously, but they must also acknowledge that they frequently lack the resources or the legal authority to go into significant situations.
● The editor must choose when to notify the accused author's employers(s).
● While some proof is required, editors do not need to put together a convincing argument if employers have a procedure for looking at complaints, which they are increasingly expected to do. Since doing so typically entails consulting specialists, it may be unethical for editors to do so because it raises important issues about the author(s).
● Editors should notify the author(s) that they are reporting any major wrongdoing to the employers if they are presented with convincing evidence—possibly by reviewers.
● Editors should secretly consult experts if allegations of serious wrongdoing are not supported by strong evidence.
● Editors should alert the employers if the specialists seriously contest the research.
● The editorial processes should continue as usual if the experts find no proof of malfeasance.
● Cases may be referred to the General Medical Council if strong evidence of significant wrongdoing is produced, there is no employer to whom this can be reported, and the author(s) are licensed physicians.
● The editor may conclude that the case is significant enough to deserve publication in the journal if, however, there is no organization with the authority and resources to launch an investigation. Then, legal counsel will be necessary.
● Editors may believe that publishing a notice in the journal is appropriate if they are certain that an employer has not adequately investigated a significant claim. Legal counsel will be necessary.
● Those who have been accused of significant misbehavior by authors should be given the chance to respond.
● Measure #14
Knowing How To Deal With Less Serious Infractions
● Editors may choose those less serious incidents of wrongdoing, such as redundant publication, authorship fraud, or failing to make apparent a conflict of interest, which may not require the involvement of employers. Even while it would be prudent to select an impartial expert, there are occasions when the facts might speak for themselves.
● Editors should keep in mind that even seemingly modest allegations of wrongdoing could have major repercussions for the author or authors, necessitating a request for an investigation from the employers.
● Authors ought to be given the chance to address any allegations of minor misbehavior.
● Editors may want to enact some of the punishments listed below if they are persuaded that misbehavior has occurred.
● Measure #15
Imposing Sanctions Wherever & Whenever Applicable
● Sanctions may be combined or applied singly.
● The following are rated roughly according to their severity -
● Where there appears to be a true misinterpretation of the principles, a letter of explanation (and education) to the writers.
● A letter of censure and advice on behavior going forward.
● A official letter to the proper institution's or financing organization's head.
● Publishing a notification of plagiarism or repetitive publication.
● A detailed editorial outlining the misbehavior.
● For a predetermined amount of time, refuse to accept any more submissions from the person, group, or organization that committed the wrongdoing.
● Notifying other editors and the indexing authority of the formal withdrawal or retraction of the manuscript from the scientific literature.
● Reporting the incident to the General Medical Council or any appropriate body or organization that can look into it and take appropriate action.
● Measure #16
Having A Peer Review System That Is Foolproof
● All world-class reviewers who evaluate papers for any journal, as well as all reviewers of any manuscript submitted to a Scopus publication, are expected to adhere to the highest standards and these rules.
● Peer review is a crucial step in publishing and, by extension, in research.
● It aids in ensuring that research is properly planned and carried out and that published articles explain experiments that concentrate on central themes.
● Additionally, it encourages the presentation of methods in enough detail to allow for replication, the use of clear, thoroughly analyzed data, and data-supported conclusions.
● Finally, it encourages accurate citation of earlier works of literature.
● Peer review acts as a safety for both the authors and the readers in these ways.
Rule #1
● The interests of the scientific community are served by thorough scientific examination. Peer review is a very important precaution, even though readers of scientific publications must decide for themselves how well-written a research article is. First, it gives readers some assurance that the content is of high quality, which is crucial in subjects that they are unfamiliar with. Second, reading a piece of writing that doesn't adhere to acknowledged norms takes less time. Therefore, it is crucial that reviewers thoroughly assess a document, which frequently takes several hours. All facets of the text should be fairly evaluated in a thorough evaluation.
Rule #2
● Accepting a request to examine a work entails an implied commitment to provide a complete assessment in a timely manner.
Rule #3
● With due consideration for the upholding of high standards of communication, a reviewer should take into account the caliber and importance of the experimental and theoretical work, the wholeness of the description of methods and materials, the logical foundation of the interpretation of the outcomes, and the exposition.
Rule #4
● Reviews should contain constructive criticism and, if necessary, an indication of any places where a statement could need to be supplemented with references to existing literature.
Rule #5
● A thorough review must take into account both a manuscript's scientific merit and its ethical implications. Experiments must be carried out and reported in an ethical manner. The reviewer has a crucial function to play in preserving the
integrity of the scientific literature, even though the authors bear the major duty for this assurance.
Rule #6
● A reviewer is required to take into account the ethical implications of a manuscript and should alert the editor of any concerns about ethical norms being broken in the study or reporting. The editor should then promptly ask pertinent questions of the authors.
Rule #7
● Among the topics available for discussion are, but are not limited to, unethical treatment of animals and human subjects, fabrication or falsification, wrong data analysis, the use of deceptive visuals, duplicate publication, and incorrect or omitted reference of other people's work (including plagiarism).
Rule #8
● When asked to review a manuscript, all scientists are encouraged to take part, if at all possible. Thousands of publications relating to neuroscience are submitted to journals every year for review. The obligations assumed by diligent people are reduced by spreading out the task of examining these articles as widely as possible, which contributes to the availability of competence in many fields and a diversity of opinions.
Rule #9
● Unless specifically indicated in the instructions for authors and reviewers, or unless a reviewer requests disclosure, the anonymity of reviewers should be maintained.
Rule #10
● Both authors and reviewers should adhere to the confidentiality policies established by the relevant journal, keeping in mind that these restrictions can vary greatly between journals.Because it is believed that disclosure would prevent an adequate review, the majority of journals in neurology and related subjects refrain from disclosing reviewers' names to the authors of papers. However, such publications typically give the reviewer access to the authors' names because it is believed that knowing who the writers are can help them assess the quality of a submission. For instance, it could be crucial to know if a specific author has expertise in a particular technique. When there is such an imbalance in the information, neither the quality nor the confidentiality of the review process should be compromised.
Rule #11
● Reviewers shouldn't talk to authors about a book they are considering. Similarly, authors should only speak with the editor and not start such a conversation with a reviewer. When an author tries to contact a reviewer repeatedly, the reviewer should alert the editor.
Rule #12
● When selecting reviewers for a particular manuscript, attention should be paid to their high qualifications and objectivity. Reviewers who are actively engaged in the field of study covered by submission are frequently the most qualified. However, in order for the peer review procedure to be successful, writers and editors must also be confident in the reviewers' objectivity. For these reasons, when reviewing a particular paper, reviewers should be alert for any conflicts of interest or appearances of such conflicts.
Rule #13
● A person who is asked to review a manuscript but feels unqualified to make an assessment of it should promptly return the document without reviewing it and inform the editor of the situation.
Rule #14
● People must disclose any potential conflicts of interest they may have with respect to a submission to the editor. If they feel that the conflict may compromise their objectivity, they should reject to review the manuscript. Instances of a conflict of interest could potentially include but aren't limited to - a manuscript that's so closely connected to the potential reviewer's work in progress that it would be taught to ensure that the reviewer would not be impacted by reading the manuscript; a manuscript that vehemently advocates or contradicts the potential reviewer's ideas; an author who has recently worked with the potential reviewer as a mentor, student, collaborator, or protagonist.
Rule #15
● If uncertain, a potential reviewer should -promptly return the manuscript without reviewing it and inform the editor of the situation, get in touch with the editor and rely on their judgment regarding whether or not to accept the position of a reviewer, or explain the potential conflict of interest to the editor in a confidential comment that is included with the review.
Rule #16
● Reviews shouldn't include foul language or make personal attacks. Reviewers do not need to refrain from offering criticism; in fact, this is better for science. Reviewers should, however, make polite comments. It is inappropriate to use foul language or make personal remarks against the writers; doing so could cast doubt on the reliability of the reviewer's observations. If it's necessary to maintain decorum, editors may decide to edit a review.
Rule #17
● Reviews need to be prompt and comprehensive. A review must be complete, objective, and timely, among other things.Authors gain from timely criticism, such as when a new experiment or method improvement is suggested.Furthermore, priority - publishing a finding ahead of time - is frequently a crucial factor in assessing an author's output.
Rule #18
● Reviewers must be given the time they need to conduct a complete evaluation, and they should do so. They must also promptly submit their assessment of the manuscript. It is widely believed that two weeks is typically enough time to finish reviewing a full-length document.
Rule #19
● If a reviewer is asked to consider a manuscript at a time when other commitments prevent them from doing so right away, they should politely decline. As an alternative, the reviewer may alert the editor to potential delays, suggest a new deadline for the review, and rely on the editor's assessment of whether a delay is acceptable.
Rule #20
● Reviewers are forbidden from using a manuscript's non-public information to further their own research or professional goals. The resources required for research are limited and are largely given to those who are credited with the greatest concepts and the highest levels of output. However, authors voluntarily send their work in for review even if they won't be given credit. Therefore, it is crucial that reviewers do not misuse their privileged positions by trying to gain an advantage of their early access to novel concepts, procedures, or data.
Rule #21
● Unless the information has been made public through another source, such as an abstract or a presentation at a meeting, a stock offering, or a new article, reviewers shouldn't use any facts, theories, or interpretations found in a manuscript that is being considered to further their own research.
Rule #22
● There is one exception to this rule: It would be ethical for the reviewer to halt the research if information learned via the evaluation of a manuscript suggests that any of the reviewer's own research work will most likely turn out to be unsuccessful.
Rule #23
● Until the manuscript is published or the information in the manuscript becomes publicly available through some other means, people shouldn't buy or sell shares in a company whose product features significantly in a manuscript they are examining. They shouldn't either buy or sell shares of a rival company based on private information in a manuscript they have seen.
Rule #24
● Information in a manuscript that is being reviewed is private and should not be disclosed to anyone. The same justification that forbids reviewers from making money off of their early access to a paper also requires that reviewers respect the material as confidential. If getting additional guidance is best for the review process, it must be done while being mindful of issues of confidentiality and conflict of interest and in accordance with the policies of the journal.
Rule #25
● Reviewers and their administrative employees who work with the manuscript shouldn't talk or share it with anyone else unless it's an absolute necessity for a
complete review, and even then, only if it's in accordance with the editor's instructions.
Rule #26
● The reviewer should ask the editor for permission if the journal's guidelines permit it in the event that expert opinion is judged appropriate and calls for disclosing confidential material. This will enable the editor to ascertain whether the manuscript's authors have asked that the specific person not be designated as a reviewer.
Rule #27
● The number of extra colleagues the designated reviewer consults should be maintained to a minimum. Additionally, it is the reviewer's duty to make sure that each of these people is aware of all important provisions of these Guidelines and other pertinent rules for the particular journal, particularly those pertaining to conflicts of interest and confidentiality.
Rule #28
● Reviewers are allowed to teach their apprentices how to conduct peer reviews. For training purposes, a reviewer may insert a current lab employee with the necessary skills into the procedure. In such cases, the reviewer is in charge of making sure the trainee complies with all confidentiality responsibilities and is required to provide the trainee's identity to the journal. The reviewer is still solely accountable for the review's quality and content.
Rule #29
● The person to whom the manuscript was initially delivered bears final responsibility for the accuracy of the review and for ensuring that subsequent readers do not damage the integrity of the review process unless otherwise agreed upon by the editor or specified in the instructions.
Rule #30
● The reviewer must list every person who contributed to the private review.
Rule #31
● Reviewers should be aware that until a copyright agreement has been executed between the authors and the publisher, unpublished manuscripts are still the authors' property.
● Measure #17
Having An Editorial System That Is Foolproof
● If errors are found in a manuscript before it is published, the editor should fix them; if they are found thereafter, corrections should be published.
● Honest mistakes can be undetected until after an article has been submitted or even published, as in the case of reagents that later turn out to be less precise than first thought or measurement tools that turn out to be wrong.
● Sometimes calculations are incorrect, or a crucial paper is found too late. Any person may bring up the likelihood of error, including authors, reviewers, editors, and others.
● In each instance, it is crucial that the editor thoroughly examines the potential error after it has been identified.
● The editor and publisher should offer a method for making a correction or retraction when errors materially impact some part of a piece.
Rule #1
● An editor should contact all writers as quickly as feasible and ask for correction whenever a mistake or apparent mistake is brought to their attention by someone other than the author.
Rule #2
● Corrective action should be taken if an error has the potential to materially impact a manuscript or published article. If a document hasn't already been published, the errors must be fixed before it may be released, failing which, the release should be postponed or cancelled. The journal where the original paper first appeared should issue a report regarding the error if the piece has already been published.
Rule #3
● The authors of reports that have previously been released should always be given a chance to address and disclose any inaccuracies. The journal editor should publish a notice of correction or, in more severe circumstances, retract the article if the authors fail to do so within a reasonable amount of time.
Rule #4
● All correction or retraction announcements must be clearly displayed in the journal where the original report was published and include a complete bibliographic citation to the original article or abstract. Additionally, it must be noted on the contents page and clearly marked (e.g., erratum, retraction, or apologia).
In conclusion, getting a journal indexed in Scopus is a challenging but highly rewarding task that can greatly enhance the visibility, reach and impact of your journal among academic and research communities worldwide. The key to success is to adhere strictly to global journal publication standards, ethics, and practices. This includes having a rigorous peer-review process, maintaining high standards of quality, and adhering to ethical guidelines. By following the best practices outlined in this article, you can improve your chances of being accepted into the club of Scopus indexed journals in Engineering.
Additionally, it is vital to keep in mind that the process of getting indexed in Scopus is ongoing and requires consistent efforts to maintain the standards, ethics, and practices.
This can be done by regularly monitoring the journal's performance, implementing necessary changes and improvements, and staying updated with the latest trends and developments in the field. By staying committed to these principles, you can help ensure that your journal meets the rigorous standards set by Scopus and takes its rightful place among the world's top scholarly publications.
In summary, getting indexed in Scopus is a significant achievement, and it is important to remember that it is a long-term investment. By adhering to the global journal publication standards, ethics and practices, you can increase your chances of being accepted into the Scopus database and, in turn, give your journal the recognition and visibility it deserves.