1. | 0 World-Class Scientific Journals – 2015 : Improving quality and expanding presence in the world information resources St Petersburg : date etc Scopus Content Selection Advisory Board : the role of the Subject Chairs and the journal review process Karen Holland Subject Chair: Nursing & Health Professions & Education Dr David Rew Subject Chair : Medicine Emeritus Professor Peter Miller Subject Chair: Psychology, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine

2. | 1 An introduction to SCOPUS: The work of the Subject Chairs David Rew Consultant Surgeon University Hospital Southampton SCOPUS Content Selection Advisory Board Subject Chair for Medicine

3. | 2 A brief history of SCOPUS SCOPUS origins in 2003 as a competitor to Web of Science For peer reviewed worldwide academic literature Large and diverse founding advisory board Rapid acquisition of (18,000+) titles by 2009 Unknown numbers of applicant journals still outside SCOPUS Need recognised for a fair, systematic accession process New Content Selection Advisory Board recruited in 2009

4. | 3 The 2009 SCOPUS Content Selection Advisory Board +/-15 Subject Chairs on the Main Board Wide, broad and diverse subject expertise Experience as Journal Editors / Librarians /Bibliometricians International perspective Independent minded Collegiate = able to reach a happy consensus from diverse opinions

5. | 4 My own journey to the SCOPUS CSAB Consultant Surgeon since 1994 in UK National Health Service Associate Editor, Eur J Surg Oncol 1996-2002 Editor in Chief, Eur J Surg Oncol 2003-2009 - Entered partnership with Elsevier 2003 - Set a Board Strategy based upon quality & readability - Growth from 300 to 600 published manuscripts per year - Growth from 6-12 issues per annum - Growth in Impact Factor from <1.0 to 2.8 - Worldwide distribution on Science Direct - 240,000 reported full article downloads by 2009 Board Member, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2008-2010 Invited to join SCOPUS CSAB 2009

6. | 5 The general work of CSAB Subject Chairs Adjudication on applicant journals through the STEP process Attend international board meetings twice per year Communicate by email on “hot topics” at other times Debate & inform Board & Elsevier on developments in publishing Undertake educational tasks, seminars Support for the growth & expansion of the Regional Boards

7. | 6 The Brief of the SCOPUS CSAB Subject Chair: To create a journal accession & retention process which is Credible and Trusted (by all parties) Fair to all applicant journals Effective and Efficient Clear and Transparent Supportive of all applicant journals: constructive feedback & advice Which is under continuous development & review Which is flexible & adaptable (eg for Regional Boards)

8. | 7 A broader personal view of the Subject Chair role To bring transparency & openness to the work of the Board = Trust To improve international academic cooperation & understanding through common standards in communication & publishing To protect the reputation & quality of the world’s academic work; - Robust Policy on Publication Ethics & Malpractice - Better understanding of the “predatory journal” sector - Better measures of transparency for authors & readers - New technologies for fraud detection To improve standards in the world academic literature through education, feedback & support of editors & publishers

9. | 8

10. | 9 Emeritus Professor Peter Miller Subject Chair : Psychology, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine The Scopus journal evaluation process from the perspective of the Subject Chair

11. | 10  Pre-screening by Scopus staff Key areas of journal evaluation Detailed assessments in each area Personal experiences with quantitative and qualitative judgments How the final decision is made What I Am Going to Discuss

12. | 11 International group of 15 journal editors and librarians; all major specialty fields represented Editorial role: evaluating quality of journals, making final decisions, supporting decisions with specific feedback, providing advice to editors on how to improve their journals, providing advice to Scopus on managing the review process Scopus Title Evaluation Platform (STEP): quantitative system used to evaluate journals Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB)

13. | 12 2 years minimum Peer-reviewed content Published on a regular basis (have a ISSN number registered with the International ISSN Centre) Relevant and readable for an international audience (for example have references in Roman script and English language abstracts and titles) Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement Minimum Criteria to Qualify for Submission

14. | 13 Roman script, or Latin script, is an alphabetic writing system based on the letters of the classical Latin alphabet Russian text or references based on Cyrillic script would not comply with our requirements “brain disorder” versus “браин дисордер” References in Roman Script

15. | 14 Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement required No specific wording suggested Useful resources: http://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/what-is- elseviers-position-on-publishing-ethicshttp://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/what-is- elseviers-position-on-publishing-ethics  http://publicationethics.org/ http://publicationethics.org/ http://www.icmje.org/ Ethics Statement

16. | 15 Plagiarism Collaboration Originality Fraud Conflict of Interest Important Ethical Issues

17. | 16 Example of a Good Ethics Statement

18. | 17

19. | 18

20. | 19 All journals in these 3 areas are assigned to me for evaluation I can evaluate them by myself or choose to request other referees to review them I make the final decision to include a journal into Scopus or not My role, as a CSAB member, is to help manage and improve the selection process, make objective selection decisions, and provide useful feedback to editors and publishers My Personal Experience: Subject Chair of Psychology, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine

21. | 20 Key Areas of Evaluation Journal Policy Quality of Content Journal Standing Regularity Online Availability

22. | 21 Convincing editorial scope Type of peer review Diversity in geographical distribution of editors Diversity in geographical distribution of authors Journal Policy

23. | 22

24. | 23 Aims and scope Convincing and relevant to Scopus users? Specific or too broad Is it clear why an author might want to publish in this journal? Example of poor journal policy: publishing all areas of science; Journal of Scientific Information Journal Policy

25. | 24 Example of a Good Journal Policy Statement

26. | 25 What Constitutes “Adequate” Peer Review? Single blind peer review Double blind peer review Open peer review

27. | 26 What is Questionable Peer Review? Single review by main editor Very fast reviews: 2 weeks or less, guaranteed New journal increasing volume very quickly The case of the author who served as his own referee

28. | 27 Editors and Editorial Board: single institution, multiple institutions within one country, regional diversity, global diversity Authors: single institution, multiple institutions within one country, regional diversity, global diversity Which is best? – depends on the aims and scope and the subject area Journal claims to be international; board and authors are regional Judging Geographical Diversity

29. | 28 Academic contribution to the field Clarity of abstracts Quality of and conformity with stated aims Readability of articles Check hypotheses and conclusions iThenticate Frequent problems: vague, descriptive reports; not adding to extant literature; small sample sizes; not in line with the journal’s aims and scope Quality of Content

30. | 29

31. | 30 Judging Academic Contribution to the Field  Good science? Unique contribution to the existing literature? Merely a publication outlet for one faculty? Publishing all or most submissions? Acceptance rate?

32. | 31 Extremely important for literature searches in Scopus or any database Content: Is it a useful and comprehensive summary Language: Is the English language understandable and correct (grammar, spelling, etc.) Abstracts extremely important for non-English language journals Judging Clarity of Abstracts

33. | 32 Citedness of journal: percentage of articles cited, number of times individual articles are cited, how recent are the citations Editor standing: widely published, widely cited, recognized in their field Journal Standing

34. | 33

35. | 34 Review articles Commentaries Debates Invited articles Editorials Special issues English language website Increasing Citations: Acceptable Ways

36. | 35 Increasing Citations: Unacceptable Ways Writing heavily self- referenced editorials Pressuring authors to cite the journal

37. | 36 How many issues per year How many articles per issue How many issues delayed A journal publishing 2 issues a year with only 6 articles in each issue (5 year publication history; is it viable?; will it last?) Regularity

38. | 37

39. | 38 I usually check this first Check content available online How many issues per year; articles per issue English-language homepage option available? Quality of homepage; ease of use, how comprehensive it is Online Availability

40. | 39

41. | 40 Scoring Overview: Low, medium or high in each area Qualitative judgment looking at the overall picture Basis of Final Decision

42. | 41 Accept or Not Accept Specific reasons given Email letter to publisher and editor with specific reasons why publication was accepted or not accepted If Not Accepted, specific recommendations on how to improve (VERY IMPORTANT) – more similar to a “Revise and Resubmit” than a rejection Reapply in ? years Final Decision

43. | 42 The Way Forward : working with the Russian CSAB and developing good practice in journal publishing Karen Holland SCOPUS Content Selection Advisory Board ( CSAB ) Subject Chair : Nursing / Health professions / Education

44. | 43 Subject Chair role and the Local / Regional CSAB Scopus Subject Chairs and the Russian CSAB : working together The Russian Board like all the other Regional Boards is now working with Scopus team to enhance their country’s submission success Evaluations undertaken by members of the Board are submitted along with the journal submission to the Subject Chair desk top in STEP Current personal experience is that of undertaking a Double blind peer review then contact and discussion with a Board member on the decision for that journal.This is very new and we will need to ensure whenever possible that all journals being submitted to Scopus evaluation have an internal review report attached to the submission ** Attend periodic Workshops when necessary or invited by the Russian CSAB such as the one at this conference to share best practice and update on new developments We have developed a set of Frequently Asked Questions ( FAQ’s ) for journal submissions and the role of editor which you all have a copy and will be found on the new Russian CSAB web –site ** : http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview#content-policy-and-selection *http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview#content-policy-and-selection

45. | 44 SCOPUS : How do journals get included ? And most importantly how do they stay in ? In summary The Scopus Content Selection Advisory Board ( CSAB ) http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/csab/members Selection system is called STEP http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/scopus-in-detail/content-selection Once a journal is accepted there is no long term guarantee that a journal will remain in the Scopus database – Re-Evaluation of journals already in Scopus by the CSAB Subject Chairs and their reviewers will begin soon The Role of the Russian Regional CSAB will be critical to the future success of journal acceptance into Scopus Their contribution will also bring a quality assurance vision supported by the principles of transparent Publication Ethics to Scopus content We wish the Board every success with their Project and offer the support of the Scopus CSAB Subject Chairs to the work being undertaken for this exciting future development for Russian Scholarship and Science.

46. | 45 Resources for Editors : For information only 1.http://www.elsevier.com/editorshttp://www.elsevier.com/editors 2.http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/home#journal-editorshttp://www.elsevier.com/ethics/home#journal-editors 3.http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/toolkithttp://www.elsevier.com/ethics/toolkit 4.http://publicationethics.org/http://publicationethics.org/ 5.http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelineshttp://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines 6.http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and- authorshttp://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and- authors

47. | 46 www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence Спасибо! Thank you & Questions http://twitter.com/Scopus http://blog.scopus.com/ Look out for more developments from Scopus @