Scopus Delisting Controversies: A Critical Review of Ethical and Policy Implications

Abstract

This paper presents a critical examination of the controversies surrounding Scopus journal delisting practices, with particular focus on ethical and policy implications that have emerged between 2020 and 2025. As the largest abstract and citation database globally, Scopus wields substantial influence over academic visibility, researcher career progression, institutional rankings, and funding allocations. However, recent delisting decisions—particularly those involving retroactive content removal and allegations of bias against journals from developing countries—have raised profound ethical and procedural concerns. Through detailed case studies of the Nurture, International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies (IJIRSS), and Science of Law delistings, this paper analyzes the transparency, accountability, and fairness of Scopus's Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) processes. The review identifies systemic issues including lack of procedural transparency, disproportionate impact on Global South institutions, retroactive deletion of already-indexed content, and the inherent conflict between Elsevier's commercial interests and academic mission. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for establishing equitable, transparent frameworks for journal evaluation and content retention that balance quality assurance with scholarly integrity.