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

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.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for David A. Rew: orcid.org/0000-0002-4518-2667

Catalogue record

Export record