Bantul, 4 March 2021

3 basic principle criteria: objectivity, selectivity, and collection dynamics Web of Science Core Collection


Evaluation Process and Selection criteria

  1. who is in charge of the process?
  2. Journal data and Information are collected by the editors independently rather than relying on data provided by the publishers
  3. 24 quality and 4 impact criteria for evaluation and selection
  4. Indexing can be discontinues
  5. STEPS: Initial Triage, Editorial Triage, Editorial Evaluation


Initial Triage: ensure unambiguous identification of the journal, access to content and contacts. Points:

  1. ISSN are registered and consistent with information in
  2. Journal Title
  3. Journal Publisher
  4. add the collaboration
  5. Access in single point website (URL unique and valid website where all the published content of the journal is archived
  6. Office Address
  7. Content Access: provide login and password or detect IP range
  8. Presence of Peer Review Policy
  9. Contact Details: communication, generic email.

Re-submission is able and no embargo

 Editorial Triage:  9 Criteria for the journal content:

  1. Scholarly content: original research, reviews, case studies
  2. Title and abstract in English.
  3. Bibliographic information in Roman Script is needed for paper identity: Title, Author, affiliation
  4. Clarity of language: readable and comprehensible content (will be checked every 3 months)
  5. Timeliness and publication volume: conform to stated publication schedule annual volume agrees with subject area
  6. Website Functionality/Journal format
  7. Presence of Ethics statements: guidelines on the declaration of conflicts of interest, research with animals and humans, etc.
  8. Editorial Affiliation Details: institution, city, and country of editorial board members (in website)
  9. Author Affiliation Details: institution, city, and country of authors

 Editorial Evaluation (Quality): Should be coherent and consistent

  1. Editorial Board Composition: number of members, geographic diversity, publications and citations in line with the content and scope of the journal. They are active in the research community ( qualitative) we need to see that are members in research community
  2. The validity of Statements: application of ethical statements (looking for the peer review process)
  3. Peer Review: evidence of an adequate peer review
  4. Content Relevance: the coherence of the journal, published content must be consistent with the title and stated scope of the journal.
  5. Grant support details: information of funding received for the research described in the article (not mandatory)
  6. Adherence to community standards: nomenclatures, formats, and conventions used by the international community of researchers.
  7. Author Distribution: geographic diversity, publications and citations in line with the journal’s content and scope (if the journal is expected to international, should be in many countries)
  8. Appropriate Citations to the literature: the surrounding literature for the topic should be appropriately acknowledged if at the stage of editorial evaluation (Quality) then re-submission is should me 2 years forward ( 2 years embargo) If the editorial evaluation (quality) is passed then it accepted to WOS, even it’s still have 1 more stage for that.

Content relevant criteria :

what they do is check the coherence of the journal. Content significance is looking for unique content that we could not find in other journals.

When the journal has a broad study, then we should apply for multidisciplinary

Editorial Evaluation (Impact)

Selected journal with the highest impact on the citation clarity.

  • How the journal has the unique journal
  • criteria ta the impact evaluation step are designed.