Scopus: caught-out and shirking responsibility | Ross Mounce

flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks 2024-01-14


In December last year, it was widely publicized e.g. in Science magazine [1], that Scopus has been instrumental in legitimizing publication scams whereby authors pay to bypass real scholarly peer review and have their work published on a website that looks like a real scholarly journal but is in fact not a proper journal, merely an impersonation of one. Scopus was thoroughly caught-out with some excellent, well-documented work by Anna Albakina [2]. Kudos to Anna!

As the Science article explains, the scammers: “….managed to get Scopus to list a URL other than the real journal’s…” , I have heard nothing so far from Elsevier or Scopus about their investigation as to how this happened. Isn’t it a very important and basic part of their job to get the identity of the material they are indexing correct? One amusing response I do note from Scopus is that rather than investigating the issue and implementing new processes to do a better job of it – they’ve actually just decided to completely abandon doing that particular job! On the 18th December 2023, Scopus posted a message on their official blog (yes, I checked the URL, it’s not a “hijacked” blog, this is the official Scopus blog – see Scopus, it’s not hard to check the URL provenance!) to say: “Scopus will remove the Source Homepage links from all Source details pages“. [3]

The corporate double-speak in operation in this blog post is… hmmm. On the one hand, they want to reassure readers that “Maintaining the integrity of Scopus and its high-quality, curated content is of paramount importance to us…” and “Ensuring research integrity is a top priority for us…” but the actual thing this post is announcing is that they have been caught-out and now they no longer wish to bear the responsibility of pointing accurately to where a peer-reviewed journal exists on the web (the ‘Source Homepage’ in Scopus-speak). Disapprovingly, I also note that Albakina’s excellent work that almost certainly prompted this, is not mentioned or cited anywhere in this corporate blog post ☹ . I wonder if any of the Scopus customers were consulted about this change in service? Aren’t the customers paying for this information service? To suddenly take it away is rather interesting…




From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks

Tags: oa.journals oa.publishing oa.scopus oa.elsevier

Date tagged:

01/14/2024, 11:26

Date published:

01/14/2024, 06:26