The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The quest for common global standards for the quality assurance of academic journals of Medicine and Healthcare. An audit of linkage  of the MEDLINE and Scopus journal evaluation systems

The quest for common global standards for the quality assurance of academic journals of Medicine and Healthcare. An audit of linkage  of the MEDLINE and Scopus journal evaluation systems
The quest for common global standards for the quality assurance of academic journals of Medicine and Healthcare. An audit of linkage  of the MEDLINE and Scopus journal evaluation systems
Introduction: academic journals are the bedrock of professional knowledge. The trustworthiness of journal content is critical to safe healthcare practice. Globally branded on line information resources seek to provide quality-assurance to the academic literature. MEDLINE and Scopus are two such resources. They use different expert evaluation processes to select journals for inclusion in their validated data sets. We wished to compare the outputs of title selection processes and of journal holdings in the relevant subject fields
by each system.

Methods: Scopus receives a regular feed of titles from MEDLINE which are not further evaluated. Scopus listed some 5200 Medline-derived journals in mid 2022. 114 journals were found in the MEDLINE collection which had not yet been incorporated in the Scopus Core Collection. These were used as our test sample. Each was reviewed according to standard Scopus title selection criteria by two Scopus healthcare-affiliated Subject Chairs by review of the journal website, metrics and content.

Results: 75 of the 114 journals were deemed to meet all Scopus acceptance criteria without the need for further processing. 34 journals were recommended for acceptance after formal review through the Scopus Title Evaluation Platform (STEP). Three journals had ceased publication and insufficient information was available on two journals to permit an early decision. At follow up review in January 2025, all newly recommended journals from Medline had been accepted in SCOPUS, excepting eight journals which had demonstrably ceased publication by January 2025.
University of Southampton
Rew, David A.
36dcc3ad-2379-4b61-a468-5c623d796887
Lehman, Michael
fbde30e1-90eb-48d0-911d-c470d8b2eade
Rew, David A.
36dcc3ad-2379-4b61-a468-5c623d796887
Lehman, Michael
fbde30e1-90eb-48d0-911d-c470d8b2eade

[Unknown type: UNSPECIFIED]

Record type: UNSPECIFIED

Abstract

Introduction: academic journals are the bedrock of professional knowledge. The trustworthiness of journal content is critical to safe healthcare practice. Globally branded on line information resources seek to provide quality-assurance to the academic literature. MEDLINE and Scopus are two such resources. They use different expert evaluation processes to select journals for inclusion in their validated data sets. We wished to compare the outputs of title selection processes and of journal holdings in the relevant subject fields
by each system.

Methods: Scopus receives a regular feed of titles from MEDLINE which are not further evaluated. Scopus listed some 5200 Medline-derived journals in mid 2022. 114 journals were found in the MEDLINE collection which had not yet been incorporated in the Scopus Core Collection. These were used as our test sample. Each was reviewed according to standard Scopus title selection criteria by two Scopus healthcare-affiliated Subject Chairs by review of the journal website, metrics and content.

Results: 75 of the 114 journals were deemed to meet all Scopus acceptance criteria without the need for further processing. 34 journals were recommended for acceptance after formal review through the Scopus Title Evaluation Platform (STEP). Three journals had ceased publication and insufficient information was available on two journals to permit an early decision. At follow up review in January 2025, all newly recommended journals from Medline had been accepted in SCOPUS, excepting eight journals which had demonstrably ceased publication by January 2025.

Text
SCOPUS vs Medline paper for UoS Eprint server Rew Lehman 14th Feb 2025 - Author's Original
Download (848kB)

More information

Published date: 14 February 2025

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 499200
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/499200
PURE UUID: fffe5cd4-cf45-4286-bae0-8aa728a387be
ORCID for David A. Rew: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4518-2667

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 12 Mar 2025 17:30
Last modified: 13 Mar 2025 03:00

Export record

Contributors

Author: David A. Rew ORCID iD
Author: Michael Lehman

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×