Evaluation methodology
Every evaluation scores a journal on 36 criteria in eight sections. Each section's weight reflects how much it says about a journal's integrity, so research ethics carries the most.
How the 10 points are divided
Preliminary1.00
Editorial board1.50
Editorial policy0.50
Content quality1.00
Standards1.00
Research ethics2.50
Visibility1.00
Citation assessment1.50
1. Journal Preliminary Criteria
1.00| Journal title and consistency across recordsTitle is identical on the website, ISSN record and article pages. | 0.10 |
| Valid ISSN/e-ISSN where applicableISSN check digit is valid and the ISSN is shown on the journal website. | 0.15 |
| Publication frequency and continuityStated frequency matches the issues actually published in the last two years. | 0.15 |
| Publisher identity and contact informationNamed publisher with a postal address and working contact channel. | 0.15 |
| Transparent peer-review informationPeer-review type and process are described publicly. | 0.15 |
| Secure, professionally maintained websiteHTTPS, working navigation, no broken core pages. | 0.10 |
| Clear open-access/subscription and fee policyAccess model and all author charges are stated before submission. | 0.10 |
| Archiving and preservation policyNamed preservation arrangement (e.g. LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, PKP PN, national library). | 0.10 |
2. Editorial Board Criteria
1.50| Verified editorial board members and affiliationsMembers have full names, institutions and verifiable profiles (ORCID, institutional page). | 0.40 |
| Subject expertise and appropriate board compositionBoard expertise matches the journal scope; size proportionate to output. | 0.40 |
| Editorial independence and documented review proceduresDocumented editorial decision process independent of the publisher's commercial side. | 0.40 |
| Reviewer selection, review records, and decision timelinesReviewer selection criteria and typical timelines are published. | 0.30 |
3. Journal Editorial Policy
0.50| Aims, objectives, and scopeA specific, coherent aims and scope statement. | 0.10 |
| Defined subject areasSubject areas are defined and not unreasonably broad. | 0.10 |
| Article processing charges and other fees disclosedAll fees, currency and waiver policy disclosed. | 0.10 |
| Submission-to-publication timeline and editorial workflowWorkflow and expected timelines are explained. | 0.10 |
| Acceptance-rate disclosure, with period and denominator, if reportedIf reported, the period and denominator are given. Handling when not reported is set in methodology settings. | 0.10 |
4. Journal Quality Criteria — Content
1.00| Scholarly contribution, originality, and research relevanceAssessed on a defined sample of recent articles. | 0.75 |
| Conformity of published articles to the journal's scopeSampled articles fall within the stated scope. | 0.25 |
5. Journal Standards
1.00| Bibliographic accuracy and referencesReferences are complete and consistently formatted. | 0.20 |
| Readability and professional presentationConsistent layout, typesetting and language editing. | 0.10 |
| Figures, tables, and supplementary materialsLegible, labelled and cited in text, where applicable. | 0.10 |
| Accuracy of metadata and citation recordsArticle metadata (DOIs, authors, dates) is complete and correct. | 0.20 |
| Print publication consistency, where applicablePrint edition claims are consistent with online records. | 0.10 |
| Full-text online availability or clearly documented access arrangementsFull text is reachable or access terms are clear. | 0.10 |
| Website maintenance and usabilityArchive is navigable and links work. | 0.10 |
| Appropriate multilingual or language-access provisionsAbstracts or metadata in the languages of the intended readership, where relevant. | 0.10 |
6. Research Ethics
2.50| Published author and publication ethics policiesEthics policy, ideally aligned with COPE guidance. | 0.50 |
| Plagiarism screening and documented handling of suspected misconductScreening tool and misconduct procedure are documented. | 0.75 |
| Conflict-of-interest declarations and managementPolicy for authors, reviewers and editors. | 0.50 |
| Authorship, corrections, retractions, research-integrity procedures, and a transparent AI-use policyAuthorship criteria, correction/retraction process and AI-use policy are published. | 0.75 |
7. Journal Visibility and Discoverability
1.00| Verified discoverability and metadata availability in relevant scholarly servicesOnly coverage verified with the external service is credited. | 0.50 |
| Archiving, persistent identifiers, and documented citation-data availabilityDOIs or other persistent identifiers and deposited metadata. | 0.50 |
8. Citation Impact Assessment
1.50| Citation-data reliability, coverage, and reproducibilitySource, coverage and retrieval date are documented and reproducible. | 0.50 |
| Citation performance relative to a documented, appropriate comparison groupCompared against journals of similar subject, age and size. | 0.50 |
| Self-citation analysis, duplicate detection, and citation-integrity reviewSelf-citation share and anomalies are reviewed. | 0.50 |
Score bands
| Score | Classification |
|---|---|
| 8.50 – 10.00 | Strong performance against the evaluation criteria |
| 7.50 – 8.49 | Meets the evaluation threshold |
| 6.00 – 7.49 | Meets some evaluation requirements |
| 4.00 – 5.99 | Requires substantial improvement |
| 0.00 – 3.99 | Does not meet the evaluation threshold |