Compromising quality parameters lead to fallout: a study of de-indexing of research journals

Main Article Content

Ramesh Pandita
Shivendra Singh


The study aims to investigate the number of journals de-indexed by Scopus during the last two decades, specifically, from 2000 through 2019. Data for the study were retrieved from SCImago, a Scopus database. The scope of the study is global, covering all the 27 major subject disciplines categorized in Scopus. A total of 6059 research journals were found to be de-indexed from Scopus up until 2019, accounting for 18.61 percent of the total journals indexed in Scopus till date. Among the total de-indexed journals, 2311 (38.14%) journals were de-indexed from the period between 2000 and 2019. A steady decline in the de-indexing of journals has been observed after the year 2010. Among the top 20 countries with the highest number of de-indexed journals, it was found that 90.11 percent of journals have been de-indexed from these countries altogether. The United States stands out as the leading country, contributing to nearly one-third of the total de-indexed journals worldwide, with Medicine (44%) being the leading subject area in the de-indexed journals. On a national level, Sweden takes the lead, recording the highest de-indexing rate of  40.70 percent of journals. Following standard publishing parameters in publishing research results is of utmost importance for several reasons, with the primary one being dissemination of genuine and authentic research for the larger benefit of society. Any compromise with the quality of published research must be addressed seriously, and if necessary de-indexing a journal as a punitive measure should be considered appropriate and welcomed.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Pandita, R., & Singh, S. . (2023). Compromising quality parameters lead to fallout: a study of de-indexing of research journals . Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 28(2), 29–45.
Author Biography

Shivendra Singh, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridko

Assistant Librarian 


Abrizah, A., Zainab, A. N., Kiran, K., and Raj, R. G. 2012. LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: a comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, Vol. 94, no.2: 721-740. Available at:

Aksnes, D.W., and Sivertsen, G. 2019. A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science, Vol. 4, no. 1: 1-21. Available at:

Barnett, P., and Lascar, C. 2012. Comparing unique title coverage of Web of Science and Scopus in earth and atmospheric sciences. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, Vol. 70. Available at:

Clarivate. 2022. Web of Science Core Collection. Clarivate. Available at:

Cobey, K.D., Lalu, M.M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A. and Moher, D. 2018. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research 7. Available at:

Darbyshire, P., McKenna, L., Lee, S.F. and East, C.E. 2017. Taking a stand against predatory publishers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 73, no. 7: 1535-1537. Available at:

Erfanmanesh, M., Tahira, M. and Abrizah, A. 2017. The publication success of 102 nations in Scopus and the performance of their Scopus-indexed journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, no. 4: 421-432. Available at:

Kosmopoulos, C. and Pumain, D. 2007. Citation, citation, citation: bibliometrics, the web and the social sciences and humanities. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, 411. Available at:

Kratochvíl, J., Plch, L., Sebera, M. and Koriťáková, E. 2020. Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view. Learned Publishing, Vol 33, no. 3: 308-322. Available at:

Krauskopf, E. 2018. An analysis of discontinued journals by Scopus. Scientometrics, Vol. 116, no. 3: 1805-1815. Available at:

Kumar, J. M. 2022. Beware of predatory journals. IETE Technical Review, Vol.39, no.4: 735-736. Available at:

Laakso, M., Matthias, L. and Jahn, N. 2021a. Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 72, no. 9: 1099-1112. Available at:

Laakso, M., Matthias, L. and Jahn, N. 2021b. Response to comment on "Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals". Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 72, no. 9: 1115-1116. Available at:

Laakso, M., Solomon, D. and Björk, B.C. 2016. How subscription‐based scholarly journals can convert to open access: A review of approaches. Learned Publishing, Vol. 29, no. 4: 259-269. Available at:

Matthias, L., Jahn, N. and Laakso, M. 2019. The two-way street of open access journal publishing: Flip it and reverse it. Publications Vol. 7, no. 2: 23. Available at:

Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. 2015. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, Vol. 106, no. 1: 213-228. Available at:

Otike, F., Bouaamri, A., and Hajdu Barát, Á. 2022. Predatory publishing: a catalyst of misinformation and disinformation amongst academicians and learners in developing countries. The Serials Librarian, Vol. 83, no.1: 81-98. Available at:

Pandita, R., Koul, M. and Singh, S. 2017. Growth of research journals in India during last decade (2005-2014): an overview. Collection Building, Vol. 36, no. 4: 143-154. Available at:

Pandita, R., Koul, M. and Singh, S. 2022. Indexing and de-indexing of journals in UGC CARE list: A critical commentary. University News, Vol. 60, no. 19: 7-12.

Pandita, R., and Singh, S. 2021. Journal packing density of library and information science research journals at the global level: a study. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. Available at:

PLOS. 2022. Publication fees. PLOS. Available at:

Richtig, G., Berger, M., Lange-Asschenfeldt, B., Aberer, W., and Richtig, E. 2018. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Vol. 32, no. 9: 1441-1449. Available at: jdv.15039.

Rupp, M., Anastasopoulou, L., Wintermeyer, E., Malhaan, D., Khassawna, T.E. and Heiss, C. 2018. Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research. International Orthopaedics, Vol. 43, no. 3: 509-517. Available at:

SCImago. 2022. SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. Scimago Lab. Available at:

Scopus. 2022. Content policy and selection. Elsevier. Available at:

Shelomi, M. 2021. Comment on “Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 72, no. 9: 1113-1114. Available at:

Shen, C. and Björk, B.C. 2015. Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine Vol. 13, no. 1: Available at:

Shokraneh, F., Ilghami, R., Masoomi, R. and Amanollahi, A. 2012. How to select a journal to submit and publish your biomedical paper? Bioimpacts, Vol. 2, no. 1: 61-68. Available at:

Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., and Mayr, P. 2021. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, Vol. 126, no. 6: 5113-5142. Available at:

The PLoS Medicine Editors. 2006. The impact factor game. PLoS Medicine, Vol. 3. no. 6: e291. Available at:

van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. 2019. Accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and Scopus. arXiv. Available at:

Zhu, J. and Liu, W. 2020. A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, Vol. 123, no. 1: 321-335.