Scopus indexed journals 2025 with fast publications

Everyone knows that a journal that’s indexed in the Scopus database can be blindly considered a journal that is doing things right. However, with the proliferation of scientific journals today, even the most reputable of scientific journal indexing databases have begun to be infiltrated by carefully organized and curated predatory journals that make themselves appear to be nothing but legitimate. Fortunately, it is easy to spot these journals. Those who would like to seek out such journals for themselves can use the information in this blog as a helpful guide. Those who couldn’t care less can simply opt to check out our already compiled list of Scopus indexed journals 2025. 

• Quality #1

Every Top Scopus Journal Is A Specialised One

• A good Scopus journal publishes pertinent and cutting-edge research on a specific topic.
• In the optimal case, it embodies the highest quality research done in the field.
• For instance, The Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics specializes in experimental and theoretical research in the field of Physics.
• The scope of this journal is defined by empirical methodology, and papers based on experiences from all areas of Physics are therefore entertained.
• Why does a journal have to specialize in experimental research? 
• Firstly, it should be noted that experimentation is the “holy grail” of the search for scientific knowledge. 
• Experiments offer an understanding of various causes and effects via a systematic examination of the outcome that emerges when a specific factor or variable is exploited. 
• The design of experimental research must be driven by the max-conmin principle, which calls for the maximization of the systematic variance of the experimental variables under analysis, the controlling of the variance of systematic errors (or “bias”) influenced by the confounding variables; and the minimizing of the random error variance influenced by random variables. 
• In an ideal experiment, all variables are managed, and none are unmanageable, making it simple to distinguish persuasive from less convincing experiments. 
• A solid experiment gives great confidence in inferring a causal relationship between variables (so-called “internal validity”). 
• Moreover, it can arbitrate between competing models and theories by falsifying rival hypotheses. 
• It is, therefore, not alarming that a crucial criterion for publication is that the experiment should make a considerable contribution to a theoretical research question.

• A theory is the beginning point of experimental research and its endpoint.
• This is the starting point because it allows for the derivation of hypotheses that are empirically tested with experience. 
• This is the end point because the experiment serves to evaluate and correct the theory. 
• It is this reciprocity with the theoretical update that gives experimental research a deep meaning.
• What does this mean for experimental research? Those in the field plan to regularly highlight the significance of theories for experimental research with publications of theoretical articles by renowned researchers. 
• In a theoretical article, an empirically based theory or theoretical concept is presented in a succinct and intelligible way to a broad audience. 
• Editorial teams will regularly invite eminent researchers to write theoretical articles. 
• However, original theoretical papers may also be submitted unsolicited to top experimental research Scopus journals and publications. 
• In fact, most publishers would like to see many more theoretical papers published in their journals in the future, welcoming all researchers to send in their theoretical papers for review.

• Quality #2 

A Good Journal Has A Rigorous Peer Review Process In Place

• The primary obligation of a scientific journal for quality management is to carry out peer review. 
• Editors of experimental research journals are responsible for (usually) asking two independent experts in their respective fields of study for their opinions.
• The arbitrators are provided with evaluation criteria for the assessment, and they are asked to render their opinions usually within a period of three-four weeks. 
• It is obvious that a well-organized peer review process has by far the most influence on the quality of the publication process. 
• Manuscript files are handled electronically by a manuscript portal that ensures sleek and opportunely communication between editors, reviewers, and authors.

• Most significantly, publishers encourage their journal editors to make a fundamental decision on the usefulness or otherwise of a manuscript submission subsequent to the first round of review. 
• In most scenarios, a journal editor can assess the appropriateness of a manuscript fairly precisely after the author’s response letter. 
• Therefore, additional revision is requested at this stage only when relatively minor revisions are necessary for publication.

• With this policy, most journals aim to limit the number of long review cycles and offer authors immediate feedback on the status of their submissions.
• Also, not all manuscripts pass through to the peer review stage. 
• Manuscript submissions that are deemed to be outside the scope of the journal and/or be fraught with technical issues are swiftly rejected by editorial committees after consultation with the editorial assistants. 
• As much as a third of submissions in past years have been rejected, and in those cases, authors obtain detailed feedback on why within a few days.
• Managing a scientific journal necessitates the skill of many parties involved – journal editors, editorial assistants, technical staff, peer reviewers, and submitting authors. 
• Journal editors must be adept at handling manuscripts, as the peer review system is not without inherent flaws. 
• Reviews can be partial, erratic, and at times even downright abusive.
• Consequently, this process necessitates special attention and oversight on the part of processing editors. 
• Most top-notch experimental research journals are fortunate to have boards of internationally renowned associate editors with strong research experience in various areas of experimental research. 
• Additionally, they have large boards of consulting editors who can help when a particular submission doesn’t match the editor’s expertise. 
• First-hand research expertise is required for the fair and professional handling of research papers which often requires delicate balancing and weighing of reviewers’ arguments and concerns and making recommendations to allay those concerns. 
• Needless to say, journal editors occupy a position of prominence here that must be used wisely and responsibly. 
• While these journals value their excellent review editorial boards, they are also aware that even they can make mistakes from time to time. 
• Therefore, authors have the option of contacting the editors directly when they feel the submission has been treated unfairly. 
• These journals strive to treat all incoming inquiries and complaints confidentially and with the utmost respect. In their own editorial conduct, they feel obligated to adhere to COPE or the Code of Conduct & Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors published by the Publication Ethics Committee.
• These guidelines explicitly extend to authors the right to appeal editorial decisions. 
• Additionally, publishers acknowledge postings of corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies where appropriate. 
• With these measures, they aim to create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect that makes the release process a satisfying experience for all players.

• Standard #3

Transparency Is A Hallmark Of All Great Journals

• Research involves numerous decisions being made and the transparency of these decisions in publications is crucial for any science. 
• The best journals in the world are signatories to the TOP or Transparency and Openness Promotions guidelines that were published back in 2015. 
• These guidelines necessitate that the raw data underlying the primary findings reported in an article be made available to the general public prior to publication. (“open data”). 
• The publication of this raw data is mandatory, but exceptions are allowed when the authors have ethical, data security, or IP concerns. 

• In this case, the exceptional circumstances must be explicitly stated in the cover letter to publishers. 
• In the past, some renowned publishers made use of a data repository service where authors could deposit their raw data for the public to access. 
• A lot of journals, however, have ceased using this service to host research data. 
• The primary reason being that the files archived in the journal’s data archive aren’t referenced by a uniform identifier, such as a digital object identifier (DOI). 
• Uniform identifiers are vital as they ensure future access to unique published digital objects, including text or a dataset. 
• Luckily, public research data repositories offering a DOI for downloads now abound and are available for free. 
• A lot of journals ask authors to make use of one of these repositories for their future submissions. 
• Journals also encourage authors to deposit research materials (e.g., stimulation materials) necessary to replicate the published experiment. Some journals also intend to introduce badges (provided courtesy of the Open Science Framework) in published articles that notify the reader as to what content has been made available to the public. 
• Another step towards greater transparency consists in removing paywalls and other barriers that block the dissemination of academic research articles. 
• For publications in most experimental research journals, authors can choose between a publication according to the traditional model by subscription (“pay to read”) and a publication offering immediate open access to all without a paywall. 
• In pay-to-access publications, authors are mandated to pay a one-time article fee, and with this, the article is made available to anyone, anywhere in the world, at any time. 

• Quality #4

A Great Journal Understands & Celebrates Reproducible Data

• As described already, the value of replicable data has been underestimated in recent years – reviews have concentrated more on publishing fancy data rather than esteeming reproductions of established outcomes. 
• Nevertheless, truly independent and direct (non-conceptual) reproduction ensures that a specific effect is reproducible, thereby contributing to the impact of the effect. 
• Therefore, a great journal must publish systematically sound reproduction studies irrespective of the outcomes.
• A crucial tool for confirmation research is the pre-registration of study programs. 
• Experimental research journals were at the forefront of widespread academic publication when recorded reports were introduced as a new type of article. 
• A documented report is a pre-recorded study program detailing –
  • theoretical background, 
  • empirical hypotheses,  
  • data analysis strategies and methodologies for a project scheduled but not yet carried out. 
• The study plan is assessed by scientific peers, and, most crucially, an editorial decision of acceptance is made prior to the outcomes of the experiment being realized.
• One of the primary benefits of pre-registration is that it does away with the guesswork once outcomes are realized and the refusal to publish negative outcomes. 
• In addition, the saved report format is especially impactful for pre-registration of replication studies that are conducted to evaluate the reproducibility of essential study results. 
• The best experimental research journals recognize the significance of close replication endeavors and empower researchers to utilize the recorded report format for this purpose.

• Quality #5

A Great Journal Values & Treats Authors With The Respect They Deserve

• While initiatives endeavoring for more clarity and management during the publishing process are entertained, executing concrete practices, more often than not, comes with expenses in the form of improved bureaucracy for authors as well as other parties. 
• In order to combat this tendency towards bureaucratization, journals will periodically check the internal workflow and submission guidelines for duplicate requirements and unnecessary obligations. 
• For instance, while the requirement to offer the raw data when presenting the manuscript complied with transparency standards, internal audits often find that only a negligible fraction of reviewers, in fact, have access to the raw data when reviewing. 
• This implies that the submission guidelines necessitate authors to provide the raw data to reviewers who do not make use of it. 
• Hence, a lot of journals have now removed the necessity for a data deposit upon submission; however, the manuscript must still comprise a permanent URL pointing to the raw data prior to it being accepted for publication. 
• In short – authors have to deposit the raw data in a public repository.
• However, this is now possible later on after submission. 
• It is widely believed that this policy is a decent compromise between the demand for less bureaucratic red tape and the justified call for “open data”.
• Additionally, authors must be confident that their submission is handled promptly and responsibly by journal offices. 
• A few years ago, editorial teams took an average of slightly more than two months from manuscript submission to first decision. 
• Although this value is acceptable, journals continue to aim to reduce this even further by further optimizing internal working systems and executing additional control and reporting tools. 
• It is also beneficial that the post of the editor is now held by two people.
• A lot of journals’ ambitious objective is an average time of fewer than fifty days between manuscript submission and the first decision for next year.

Opting For The Right Journal For Your Research Work & Publishing Goals

In this regard, several recommendations to authors to ensure the credibility of their research results upon publication can be offered, including –

• Adherence to the principles of research integrity and publication ethics;
• Identification of journals that adhere to best practices promoted by professional scholarly publishing organizations; and
• Avoidance of publishing in journals that do not have a clearly defined and rigorous peer review process. 

How can authors assess the integrity, history, practices, and reputation of journals? There is no reliable list of good and bad journals nor an automated decision support tool to identify which journals are likely to be published. It is highly recommended that authors begin their list of potential journals by considering the journals they use to learn about the latest research findings, studies, and innovations. Other potential journals include journals of publications that authors cite in their research, journals that they review, and journals associated with their professional organizations. Mentors and colleagues may also be able to provide insight into journals considered relevant to a research area or recommended for tenure and promotion. Consultations with mentors and colleagues can be particularly important for early-career authors and authors who are tackling a research topic outside of their primary field. Other criteria to consider are detailed below.

• The Journal’s Scientific Rigor
  • A key telltale sign of the quality of the journal is the scientific rigor of the publications published in a given journal. 
  • When regarding publishing in a new or unfamiliar journal, start with a review of publications published over the past few years to assess details such as research purpose, design, methodology, data analysis, results, and discussion, all of which can provide insight into scientific quality. 
  • Tables and figures should be clearly marked, legible and appropriate to the data. 
  • References must be complete and up-to-date. 
  • The procedures used by the journal to ensure scientific rigor during the peer review process also provide insight into the commitment to scientific rigor.
  • Plagiarism checks using software tools, the use of different statistical tests to confirm the validity of data, and the application of forensic tools to detect image manipulation are examples of practices followed by reputable journals to guarantee scientific rigor.

• Another clue to scientific rigor is whether the journal requires the use of recognized guidelines for research reports. 
• Reporting guidelines help ensure the quality of scientific research and improve the reproducibility of research. 
• CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE, to name a few, are examples of reporting directives. 
• Transparency of journal practices and data-sharing policies is another factor to consider when assessing scientific rigor. 
• Data sharing is essential to ensuring that science is transparent and reproducible, and promotes research integrity and fosters public trust. 
• A recent study found that a majority of a developed nation’s adult population trusts the results of scientific research more if researchers make their data publicly available.

• The Journal’s Editorial Quality
  • The editorial quality observed in publications, including editorials, can offer clues to the quality of the journal. 
  • Aspects including spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors or the lack of clarity and consistency in scientific writing are an indication of a lack of editorial oversight and reviewer commitment. 
  • These clues help in flagging a journal that isn’t suitable for publication. 
  • Titles and summaries themselves can also be a telltale sign of editorial quality – a title that isn’t descriptive or a summary that needs to be read more than once can be a warning sign.

• The Stringency Of The Journal’s Peer Review Process
  • The transparency of a journal’s peer review process is a quality indicator of its quality. 
  • A reputable journal will fully disclose the peer review process, including criteria utilized for peer review, selection of reviewers, type of peer review procedure followed, timelines involved, and how the peer review process is managed by the Board of Editors. 
  • Additional details on how conflicts of interest are managed, confidentiality clauses are upheld, and other ethical issues for peer reviewers should also be available on the journal’s website.

• The Ethics That The Journal Imposes On Itself Or Claims To Adhere To 
  • A quality journal will include info on issues including plagiarism, conflict of interest, internal review board approvals, research involving testing and experimentation on human and animal subjects, informed consent, confidentiality, fraud, salami (or segmented) posts, phantom authorship, manipulation of data and images, and other ethical considerations. 
  • Any top journal must include information on ethics on its website, what their expectations of research authors are, and how they approach these matters.
  • Reputable journals endorse guidelines and best practices for publishers such as the WAME (World Association of Medical Editors), the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

• The Reputability & Experience Of The Journal’s Editorial Board Members
  • A review of the journal’s editorial board can offer invaluable insight into its quality. 
  • Editorial board members must be recognized as reputable experts in the discipline connected to the journal’s purpose and scope, associated with well-recognized institutions, and hold suitable academic credentials. 
  • The contact details for members of the editorial staff should also be available.
  • If such information is missing from the journal website or if there isn’t any contact information of editorial board members found, further inspection is highly suggested before submitting a manuscript for peer review.

• Another index related to editorial quality is that of editorials written by the editor or members of the journal’s editorial board. 
• Editorial board members of reputable journals will contribute frequent, thoughtful editorials that provide context or meaning to publications for a specific issue or discuss updates to journal policies for authors and readers.

• The Journal’s General Reputability & Business Model
  • The reputation of a journal includes the publisher of the journal, the organization which is sponsoring the journal, its purpose and scope, as well as its mission statement, amongst other criteria. 
  • A journal’s publisher or sponsoring organization can place great emphasis on the quality of a journal. 
  • The purpose and scope must be distinctly stated, and other information, including a mission statement or sponsoring organizations help in the estimation of the reputation of the journal. 
  • A journal’s business model must be obvious, and if there are publication fees involved, the fees have to be clearly stated on the journal’s website – in other words, there mustn’t be any surprise fees imposed subsequent to submitting a manuscript for peer review.

• Copyright & IP Rights
  • The journal’s authorship and copyright policy is another benchmark of a quality journal. 
  • Copyright is a set of rights that allows authors to use, distribute, display or modify the work in any medium. 
  • Until a couple of decades ago, authors routinely transferred all rights to their work to the journal publisher upon publication. 
  • Many journals allow authors to use the work generously after publication, and in some cases, will allow the authors to retain all rights to the work. 
  • Authors are advised to anticipate any future reuse of their publications before selecting a journal and signing a copyright agreement form. 
  • Some authors are required to comply with public access mandates from federal organizations. 
  • If a journal fails to comply with public access mandates, authors should consider another journal. 
  • Some journals allow oral rights to the work or reuse of a figure or table in a subsequent work, or publication of the work on a repository, while others don’t. 
  • Journals may also stipulate various uses depending on the version of the work (pre-publication, post-publication, and final published version). 
  • The transparency of a journal’s copyright policies to authors is indicative of a quality journal.

• The Journal’s Indexing Status 
  • Authors want their research to be accessible and easily read by the general public. 
  • A quality journal will be indexed by major bibliographic and citation databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, SCI, Medline, Cumulative Index for Allied and Health Literature (CINAHL), and others. 
  • The Medline journal indexing database is produced by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and has rigorous scientific and editorial criteria for journals selected for indexing. 
  • Among the librarians at the institution, Bernard Becker Medical Library, Medline-indexed journals are considered the leading journals in the field of biomedicine, and many authors rely on Medline indexing status as a strong indicator of a quality review. 
  • This is similar in the case of Scopus, Web of Science, and SCI (which mostly index journals in the Engineering and Applied Sciences niches).

• Journal IFs (Impact Factors)
  • Authors often make use of various journal impact factor scores in identifying a top-notch journal. 
  • The Journal Citation Reports Journal (JCR) Impact Factor score was developed in the early 1960s for the selection of journals in the Web of Science citation database and as an acquisition tool for libraries. 
  • The JCR’s impact factor score has evolved over the years to be associated with identifying “high impact” journals for publication. 
  • Other journal impact scores have been launched recently, including Eigenfactor, introduced in 2008, and CiteScore, launched in 2016. 
  • Impact factor scores are calculated for journals indexed in the Web of Science as well as Scopus databases, and generally speaking, the calculations are made on the basis of the citations accrued within a specific time frame collected by journal publications. 
  • Some journals often note impact factor scores from sources such as a yearbook or catalog that do not contain citation data. 
  • Authors should be wary of vague scores presented from data sources other than citations. 
  • A more holistic approach to selecting a journal is recommended instead of relying on impact factor scores. 
  • It is recommended that authors choose target journals based on relevance, scientific rigor, and quality, not false impact factors.

• Journal Operations
  • Journal operations include archiving practices for articles using platforms such as PORTICO or JSTOR, where an identifier digital object number (DOI) is assigned to articles, or an international standardized serial number (ISSN) is assigned to the journal, together with the publication schedule. 
  • An irregular publication schedule, excessive advertising, and missing or sporadic issues are indicative of unstable management of the journal. 
  • The purpose and scope, editorial board, instructions to authors, and contact information for the journal should be available and easy to find.

• Dealing With Invitations To Have Your Work Published (Either In Journals Or Conference Proceedings Issues)
  • Most researchers are well aware of the email solicitations for journal publication or invitations to submit an abstract for a conference, and in some cases, including invitations to speak at conferences that they receive. 
  • These emails are normally quite generic and feature archaic and stilted sentencing. 
  • They are also characterized by a flurry of unrealistic promises offering acceptance of publication and publication within improbable timelines.
  • Some emails even include phrases such as “let us know how much you can afford for the item handling fee”. 
  • Names, postal addresses, and email addresses are taken from postal records found online in freely accessible databases, and for some, the subject line of emails correspond verbatim to the titles of funded fellowships of prominent institutions. 
  • There are cases where authors are invited to submit a publication in a journal, such as those published by Annual Reviews, and these invitations are usually sent by a known colleague in your field of research. If it sounds too great to be true, it more often than not is. 
  • Find the international conference list on our page if you’d like to participate in the world’s biggest academic events in your field. 

• Many institutions even warn their researchers that such emails could be potential phishing attempts. 
• If you’re interested in a specific conference or journal but are unsure of its authenticity, follow commonly recommended techniques for dealing with suspicious emails. 
• These include – 
  • not clicking on any links embedded within the email itself, 
  • entering the website address of the conference or journal instead on your browser. 
• Then using the criteria described above to determine if the event or journal is, in fact, credible.

Publishing in journals that are not reputable can diminish the credibility of your research, limit your career, and lead to little or no dissemination and adoption. When selecting a journal for your publication, a good starting point is the journals that you, your colleagues, and your mentors use to learn about the latest research studies, findings, and innovations. The next step is to review the publications in the journal you plan to have your work published by assessing the scientific rigor and editorial quality of the publications. 

Transparency of the journal about its purpose and scope, editorial board, indexing status, the peer review process, reputation, and policies for authors are among the key indicators of quality journals. These criteria can help identify quality journals for publication. Another option for authors is to consult librarians affiliated with your institution or a local public library. Librarians are well placed to provide advice in helping authors select quality journals to consider for publication. Although this involves some effort, performing due diligence in your assessment of a journal’s integrity, history, practices, and reputation before submitting a manuscript will help ensure that your work obtains the readership it deserves. Download the IFERP App to gain additional valuable insights, tips and tricks on academic research authorship and more.