Scopus Delisting Process Behind Closed Doors: A Case Study of Nurture

The journal Nurture (Online ISSN: 1994-1633), which publishes peer-reviewed research in the social sciences was removed from the Scopus database after a re-evaluation by the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). This article carefully explains what happened before and after the delisting, and examines whether Scopus followed its own guidelines during the review. It highlights how the reasons given by the CSAB do not match the rules and benchmarks published by Scopus. It also questions the fairness and professionalism of the CSAB and the review process. Most importantly, this article argues that the Scopus team made an unethical decision. The way they evaluated Nurture was not only unfair but also biased against journals from developing countries. The article calls for more transparency, fair practices, and accountability in the way global academic indexing platforms make decisions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
NURTURE
Published
2025-04-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.55951/nurture.v19i2.1006
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.96
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Scopus Delisting Process Behind Closed Doors: A Case Study of Nurture

S.R. Ahmad
2 citations
NURTURE
Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
4.96
article

Scopus Delisting Process Behind Closed Doors: A Case Study of Nurture

S.R. Ahmad
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The journal Nurture (Online ISSN: 1994-1633), which publishes peer-reviewed research in the social sciences was removed from the Scopus database after a re-evaluation by the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB). This article carefully explains what happened before and after the delisting, and examines whether Scopus followed its own guidelines during the review. It highlights how the reasons given by the CSAB do not match the rules and benchmarks published by Scopus. It also questions the fairness and professionalism of the CSAB and the review process. Most importantly, this article argues that the Scopus team made an unethical decision. The way they evaluated Nurture was not only unfair but also biased against journals from developing countries. The article calls for more transparency, fair practices, and accountability in the way global academic indexing platforms make decisions.

NURTUREVol. 19(2)
Council of Science Editors (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
4.96
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.