Perceived Bias and Ethical Concerns in Scopus Journal Delisting: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

This paper presents a critical examination of perceived bias and ethical concerns surrounding Scopus journal delisting practices. As one of the world's largest abstract and citation databases, Scopus plays an increasingly influential role in shaping global academic recognition, researcher career advancement, and institutional rankings. However, the process by which journals are removed from Scopus indexing has generated significant controversy regarding transparency, procedural fairness, and potential systemic biases. Through analysis of delisting data from 2020 to 2025, examination of specific case studies including Nurture and the International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies (IJIRSS), and critical evaluation of Scopus's governance structure, this paper argues that current delisting practices exhibit significant procedural deficiencies and perceived biases against journals from developing countries. The findings reveal that between 2020 and 2025, 335 questionable journals were removed by Scopus, with Publication Concerns (59.7%) and Outlier conduct (14.5%) representing the primary grounds for removal. This paper concludes by proposing recommendations for greater transparency, accountability, and equitable treatment in Scopus's journal evaluation and delisting processes.