Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Scopus Indexing Applications

Lack of Transparency and a Professional Online Presence:

Having a journal name that is easily confused with another or is misleading about its scope or origin.
Not having a properly supported, maintained, and secure website, ideally using HTTPS.
Failing to clearly display the journal's ISSN (separate for print and electronic versions).
Not clearly articulating and publishing the journal's editorial, ethics, copyright, and fee policies directly on the website. The website must show these policies and other required information.
Not clearly indicating the journal's plan for electronic backup and long-term digital preservation of its content. Examples like PMC and those listed in the Keepers Registry are mentioned as appropriate destinations.
Not utilising functioning DOIs for published papers.
Failing to include essential information like the journal's aims and scope, target readership, and types of manuscripts considered (e.g., policies on multiple or redundant publication).
Not clearly defining authorship criteria.
Using the same URL for different required guidelines or policies in applications.

Deficiencies in Publication Ethics and Policies:

Not adhering to or failing to publish clear guidelines regarding the ethical conduct of research, aligned with disciplinary regulations and norms.
Not having processes in place to review submitted work to ensure it conforms with research ethics guidelines, including handling issues like informed consent, institutional oversight, and prior ethics approval.
Lacking clear processes or guidelines for promptly responding to suspected ethical breaches by authors, reviewers, and editors. Journals must take allegations seriously.
Not having a clearly described process for handling complaints and appeals against the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher. Journals must have procedures in place to address and respond to complaints.
Failure to adhere to the COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. These are criteria used for evaluation.
Not including clear policies on data availability or encouraging the use of reporting guidelines and registration where standard practice. Lacking processes for handling issues like data fabrication and falsification.
Not developing guidelines for post-publication discussions and corrections, including mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting articles when needed. Failing to promptly retract seriously flawed articles.
Lack of clear policies on intellectual property, copyright, and publishing licenses.
Policies or statements that encourage or knowingly allow misconduct such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication.

Weak or Non-Transparent Peer Review:

Not having or clearly indicating a peer review policy.
Failing to describe the type(s) of peer review process used.
Not having policies on peer review procedures, such as the use of author-recommended reviewers or masking of identities.
Not maintaining the confidential nature of the review process.
Allowing commercial considerations (e.g., advertising) to affect editorial decisions.
Editors failing to handle their own submissions independently of the peer review process or without transparency.

Credibility Issues with the Editorial Board:

Not listing the full names and affiliations of Editorial Board members on the journal website.
Having a board list that is not up to date or includes members who have not agreed to serve or are unaware of their affiliation.
Not having credible experts on the board. Editorial board members should be experts in the journal's subject area. Requirements for qualifications (like h-index) may exist.
Failing to identify and manage conflicts of interest for board members.
Including Editorial Board Members with questionable affiliations (e.g., to journals flagged as suspicious) without addressing the issue.

Issues with Content Quality and Relevance:

Publishing manuscripts that do not fit the journal's stated scope.
Accepting papers with poor quality or flawed methodology.
Failing to ensure manuscripts comply with ethical standards for research.
Not checking for plagiarism.
Encouraging or allowing citation manipulation or having excessive author/journal self-citation rates (e.g., over 15% mentioned as a checkpoint).

Operational Inefficiencies:

Failing to clearly describe the journal's publishing frequency.
Failing to keep to the publishing schedule consistently.
Significant delays in the peer review process.

Avoiding these pitfalls, by diligently implementing and transparently documenting robust policies and processes aligning with COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, is essential for a journal to demonstrate the quality and integrity required for consideration by indexing databases.