Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Iraqi Journals Face Indexing Blow as Scopus and Web of Science Drop Multiple Titles
Iraq’s efforts to strengthen its presence in global scholarly publishing have suffered a notable setback, as several Iraqi academic journals have been removed from major international indexing databases. Three journals have been delisted from Scopus, and one of them has also been removed from Clarivate’s Web of Science, following concerns related to citation manipulation and declining editorial standards.
The decision has reignited conversations around research integrity, editorial accountability, and the structural pressures facing journals in emerging research ecosystems.
What Happened: A Brief Overview
- Three Iraqi journals were removed from Scopus during a recent content update.
- One journal was also delisted from Web of Science (ESCI) after failing to meet quality criteria.
- Primary concerns cited: abnormal citation patterns, editorial coercion, and declining standards.
Journals Removed Amid Integrity Concerns
Among the affected titles is the Medical Journal of Babylon, published by the University of Babylon. The journal came under scrutiny after allegations suggested that authors were being encouragedor pressured to cite previously published articles from the same journal as a condition for manuscript consideration.
Elsevier, which manages Scopus, cited “outlier publication performance” as a key factor that triggered a re-evaluation in late September. By October, the journal was formally delisted.
Two additional titles, the Diyala Journal of Medicine (University of Diyala) and the Iraqi Journal of AgriculturalSciences (University of Baghdad), were also removed from Scopus during the same update cycle.
Clarivate later confirmed that the Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences had been removed from its Master Journal List, where it had previously been indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). While detailed reasons were not made public, Clarivate stated that the journal no longer met its quality selection criteria, with specific feedback shared directly with the publisher.
None of the editors-in-chief of the affected journals issued public responses at the time of delisting.
Editor’s Note: Why Indexing Decisions Matter
Indexing is not merely a technical or administrative badge; it shapes where researchers submit, how institutions assess performance, and which voices are amplified globally. When journals are removed from major databases, the impact extends beyond editors to authors, reviewers, and early-career researchers whose work suddenly loses visibility.
As frequently discussed on Editor’s Café, indexing systems reward consistency, transparency, and editorial independence, qualities that require sustained institutional investment, not short-term metric gains.
Citation Pressure and the Metrics Trap
The de-listings arrive at a time when Iraqi universities are under increasing pressure to demonstrate international research visibility. Like many systems in the Global South, Iraq faces a familiar challenge: expanding publication output without parallel growth in editorial training, reviewer capacity, or ethics oversight.
Recent reports have highlighted practices such as requiring students to cite institutional journals as a graduation condition, an approach that undermines scholarly autonomy and distorts citation-based indicators.
These patterns reflect a broader global issue often explored in The Scholarly Kitchen: when research evaluation frameworks rely too heavily on citation metrics, they can unintentionally incentivize coercive or unethical editorial behavior.
Community Reaction and Escalating Tensions
The situation drew further attention after editorial adviser Alaa H. Al-Charrakh, affiliated with the Medical Journal of Babylon, posted a public message criticizing unnamed whistleblowers who had raised concerns with Scopus. He characterized the reporting as harmful to Iraq’s academic reputation.
Such reactions highlight a recurring tension in scholarly publishing: integrity concerns are sometimes framed as external attacks rather than internal governance challenges. Industry observers have long emphasized that transparency and accountability are essential for journal credibility, particularly in emerging research environments.
Scholarly Publishing Insight: This Is Not an Iraq-Only Issue
De-listings due to citation manipulation or editorial misconduct are not unique to Iraq. Journals across regions, including Asia, Eastern Europe, and parts of Latin America, have faced similar actions in recent years.
What distinguishes sustainable publishing systems is not the absence of problems, but the willingness to respond through policy reform, editor training, and community engagement. As noted in multipleanalyses, rebuilding trust after delisting requires structural change, not reputational defense.
What This Means for Iraq’s Research Future
For Iraqi researchers, many of whom operate under funding constraints and limited infrastructure, the de-listings represent a serious but not irreversible challenge. Loss of indexing affects journal visibility, author confidence, and institutional credibility, yet it also creates space for reform.
Strengthening editorial independence, investing in peer review education, and separating academic evaluation from raw citation counts will be critical steps forward.
Ultimately, this episode reinforces a core lesson for the global scholarly community: international recognition cannot be sustained through metrics alone. Credibility in scholarly publishing is built on ethical governance, rigorous review, and a culture that values research quality over numerical performance.
Keywords
Scholarly publishing Journal delisting Scopus Web of Science Research integrity Citation manipulation Editorial ethics Iraqi journals Academic indexing Peer review standards
With more than two decades of leadership in scholarly publishing and scientific communication, Muhammad Sarwar has been instrumental in advancing research dissemination across Asia. As Secretary & Treasurer of the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), he has played a pivotal role in promoting editorial excellence, publication ethics, and professional development within the scientific community. He is also a founding member of Open Science Asia, an initiative dedicated to advancing open-access publishing and empowering researchers and institutions to share knowledge freely and responsibly. In addition to his leadership at ACSE, Muhammad heads IndexONE, an abstracting and citation database that provides indexing solutions for both well-established non-indexed and emerging journals—helping them enhance visibility, credibility, and global reach. His leadership reflects a deep commitment to supporting sustainable scholarly communication and strengthening publishing infrastructures in developing regions. With a strong background in editorial management, publishing operations, and research ethics, Muhammad continues to serve as a guiding force in the Asian publishing community, driving integrity, innovation, and inclusivity in scholarly communication.
View All Posts by Muhammad SarwarDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
