Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Indonesian Q1 Journals in SCImago: Not National, Not Yet International
The rise of Indonesian journals in global indexing systems is a significant achievement. In the 2026 SCImago data used for this analysis, 68 of 315 Indonesian journals were listed as Q1. This position is often associated with international recognition. For universities, editors, reviewers, and authors, Q1 does matter. It signals visibility, reputation, and scholarly influence. It is something to celebrate.
Yet celebration should not end the discussion. Does Q1 status necessarily mean that a journal is genuinely international? A journal may be internationally indexed, highly ranked, and visible beyond its national borders, while still publishing mainly authors from its own country. In such cases, internationality becomes ambiguous. The journal is no longer merely national, but it may not yet be fully international.
This article examines that ambiguity through the authorship geography of 68 Indonesian Q1 journals listed in SCImago. The evidence suggests a transitional condition: Indonesian Q1 journals are not national, but not yet fully international.
The Question Remains the Same
Journal internationality is often inferred from Scopus indexation, SCImago quartile, citation performance, English-language publication, or the presence of international editors. These indicators are useful, but incomplete. International visibility does not always mean international participation.
The concern is not new. In 1988, when TESOL Quarterly was celebrating its twentieth year, John Swales examined the journal’s development and treated it as a major periodical in the field. He noted that a flagship journal is not merely a passive reflector of disciplinary trends but also helps shape standards of scholarly and professional behavior. Yet when Swales asked, “Is the TESOL Quarterly an international journal?” his answer was “No, at least in any geographic sense of international,” because its authorship was strongly dominated by North American locations. This earlier case shows that the gap between journal prestige and geographical internationality is a classic issue in scholarly publishing, not a new problem created by contemporary indexing systems.
Scopus journal selection criteria recognize this distinction by considering, among other elements, the geographical distribution of editors and authors. Internationality, then, is not only about where a journal is indexed. It is also about who participates in it as authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.
Looking Through the Eyes of Authorship
The dataset covers 68 Indonesian Q1 journals in SCImago and includes 14,688 author-country occurrences. The unit of analysis is not the individual author, but the occurrence of a country in the authorship-affiliation data. This distinction matters because one article may contain several country affiliations.
Indonesia accounts for 9,486 author-country occurrences, or 64.58% of the total. Non-Indonesian countries, excluding undefined entries, account for 5,035 occurrences, or 34.28%. Undefined entries account for 167 occurrences, or 1.14%.
Indonesian Q1 journals are therefore not purely national. More than one-third of identifiable author-country occurrences, 34.67%, come from outside Indonesia. At the same time, they are not yet fully international, since Indonesian affiliations alone account for account for 64.58% of the total.
Among non-Indonesian countries, Malaysia is the strongest contributor, with 1,213 author-country occurrences, or 8.26%. It is followed by Australia with 279, Thailand with 244, the United States with 225, the United Kingdom with 175, Turkey with 157, India with 150, Nigeria with 130, and Egypt with 120. The reach is broad, but the distribution remains highly concentrated.
Take Me Home, Country Journals
The dominance of Indonesian authorship should not be seen as a weakness in itself. Indonesian journals have a legitimate responsibility to serve Indonesian scholarship. The problem arises only when internationality is assumed from ranking alone.
Indonesia and Malaysia together account for 72.84% of all author-country occurrences. This suggests that the international profile of Indonesian Q1 journals is not yet globally balanced. A more accurate description is that they are domestically anchored and regionally extended.
This pattern is understandable. Journals rarely become globally international overnight. Many first move from national relevance to regional influence before attracting wider global participation.
We Are the ASEAN
The regional pattern is clear. ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, account for 76.67% of all author-country occurrences. ASEAN countries excluding Indonesia account for 12.09%. Indonesian Q1 journals therefore, cannot be described as merely national. They clearly attract authors from neighboring countries, especially Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Brunei Darussalam.
Their reach also extends beyond Southeast Asia, with contributions from Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, India, Nigeria, Egypt, the Netherlands, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and others. Still, the pattern is uneven. These journals show regionalized internationality rather than full global balance.
Can’t Buy Me Internationality
The main lesson is that Q1 status should not be treated as automatic proof of international authorship diversity. Q1 status shows strong performance within SCImago’s ranking system, but it does not tell us whether a journal has become a geographically balanced international forum.
This distinction matters for editors, publishers, universities, and policymakers. If internationality is claimed, it should be supported by several indicators: authorship geography, editorial board geography, reviewer geography, citation geography, readership geography, download geography, institutional diversity, and regional diversity. Authorship geography is only one indicator, but it is difficult to ignore.
The Long and Winding Road to Internationality
For Indonesian Q1 journals, the useful question is not whether they are “international enough,” but what kind of internationality they are building. Editors can begin by monitoring authorship geography annually. This does not mean reducing space for Indonesian authors. It means knowing whether the journal’s authorship base is expanding or narrowing.
Journals can also develop special issues with international guest editors, diversify editorial boards and reviewer pools, and strengthen English-language accessibility without losing local intellectual identity. Many Indonesian journals publish work that is locally grounded but globally relevant. The challenge is not to imitate Western journals, but to make Indonesian and regional scholarship more visible to wider audiences.
Transparency would also help. Instead of simply claiming to be “international,” journals could publish annual data on author countries, reviewer countries, editorial board countries, and international collaboration patterns. This would make internationality measurable rather than merely promotional.
I Still Haven’t Found the Internationality I’m Looking For
The phrase “not national, not yet international” is not a criticism. It describes a transitional condition. Indonesian Q1 journals are indexed, ranked, visible, and increasingly connected to authors beyond Indonesia. But if internationality means geographically balanced participation, they are still on the way.
Their current profile is best described as internationally indexed, domestically anchored, and regionally expanding. This is not a failure. It is a stage of development that should be named clearly.
For scholarly publishing, the Indonesian case offers a broader lesson: internationality should not be reduced to indexation or quartile ranking. A journal can be visible internationally without being internationally diverse. Conversely, a journal may play an important regional role before it becomes globally balanced.
The future of Indonesian Q1 journals will depend not only on maintaining rankings, but also on widening participation. If they can retain national relevance while expanding the geography of authorship, they may become a powerful model of international publishing from the Global South. For now, the evidence points to a careful conclusion: Indonesian Q1 journals are not national, but not yet fully international. They are in between, and that in-between position deserves attention.
Keywords
SCImago Indonesian Journals Q1 Journals Journal Internationality Scholarly Publishing Scopus Indexing Academic Publishing Research Visibility
Abdul Syahid has been teaching English since 1995 and earned his doctorate in English Language Teaching from the State University of Malang in 2015. Since 2020, he has served as a faculty member at Universitas Islam Negeri Palangka Raya, Indonesia. His research focuses on language testing and assessment. He actively collaborates with scholars from Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, and the United States, including Professor Donald Freeman, on a nationwide teacher training initiative based on a global framework. He has reviewed over 120 manuscripts and serves on editorial boards such as SAGE Open while valuing time with his family.
View All Posts by Abdul SyahidDisclaimer
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.
