Elsevier removes journal from Scopus after Retraction Watch inquiry

Elsevier has removed a journal from its Scopus database after Retraction Watch inquired about its review process for the journal, whose editorial board lists fake names and digital fingerprint shows other red flags.

Scientific sleuth Anna Abalkina uncovered several issues with Science of Law, which she details in a post published today. Besides editors and editorial board members who cannot be verified and don’t seem to exist, the journal’s history doesn’t match its publication record, early articles show signs of fabrication, and its publisher data in Scopus doesn’t match that in Crossref. Despite this, Scopus added the journal to its index last year. 

To understand how these problems could have evaded reviewers at Scopus, we asked Elsevier if Scopus staff verifies editorial board members when vetting journals, and if they assess the quality and validity of articles in journals before adding them to the index.

A statement from an unnamed Elsevier spokesperson indicated that as a result of our inquiry, the company will remove the journal from the database. That statement reads:

Thank you for raising these serious concerns regarding the current content of Science of Law, which we share.

Science of Law was accepted for inclusion in July 2024, following Scopus’ rigorous evaluation processes, including review of the listed Editors, policies, and publication and citation record.

Unfortunately, the journal information and content on which acceptance was based have since been changed or removed, and the journal no longer meets Scopus’ standards for quality and integrity.

We have therefore taken the decision to immediately discontinue coverage of new content from Science of Law. We are also taking the exceptional step of removing all previous content.

Maintaining the integrity of Scopus and its high-quality, curated content is of paramount importance to us. This case will be used to inform our continuous efforts to review and refine Scopus’ (re)evaluation processes.

At publication time, the journal and its articles still appear in Scopus. 

We reached out to the email address on the journal’s website at the same time we contacted Elsevier and did not receive a reply.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

• elsevier