A Critical Assessment of Scopus and Web of Science Journal Selection Criteria and Assessment Procedures

Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) are the two most influential citation indexes. Privately owned by Elsevier and Clarivate, respectively, their citation metrics and measures of journal ‘impact’ are used by researchers and institutions across the globe to assess scholarly reputation and status. With different histories and selection processes, their coverage continues to systematically under-represent academic work from regions outside North America, Europe, and Oceania, as well as work in languages other than English. This article reviews the critical scholarship on indexing, from geographical analyses in the 1970s to contemporary concerns about its uneven disciplinary coverage, the ‘metricization’ of scholarly impact, and its journal selection processes. The authors argue that the original Science Citation Index (subsequently incorporated into WoS) was historically biased in favour of US and European journals and has had an ‘anchoring effect’ through its selection and evaluation processes. Despite the efforts of both indexes to be more transparent about their evaluation processes, the authors highlight the opacity of their published eligibility criteria, the composition of their selection boards, and their growing use of automated evaluation tools. Given the potential challenges posed by non-commercial open-source journal databases such as OpenAlex, the indexes will continue to adapt and respond. The authors make a number of recommendations, such as greater use of open peer review and open data, as ways to make their journal evaluation processes more transparent and accountable.