In June 2026, twelve journals had their Scopus indexing discontinued. For the journals, this is clearly significant. Their status changes, their visibility may decline and they are likely to attract fewer submissions to the journal.
But there is a more difficult question concerning the authors. What happens to the researcher who published in the journal last year, submitted a manuscript last month, received an acceptance letter last week or has already paid an article processing charge?
Scopus indexing is not a decorative label
Researchers do not select journals solely because they are indexed by Scopus. They may also consider subject fit, readership, editorial quality, reputation and speed of review. Nevertheless, Scopus coverage often plays a significant part in the decision.
Actually, let’s be honest, some researchers will not submit to a journal unless it is indexed by Scopus. This may be a personal decision, may be an institutional decision or it may be influenced by ranking organisations that use Scopus as their data source for publication analysis.
In some universities and national systems, a Scopus-indexed publication carries formal value in recruitment, promotion, research assessment or funding. Even where there is no written rule, researchers know that the phrase “indexed in Scopus” can influence how a publication is perceived. Journals understand this, which is why indexing status is often displayed prominently on their websites.
An author choosing between two journals may therefore select the indexed one, even if it charges a higher article processing charge (APC) or has a longer publication process. When that indexing disappears, the journal loses a marketing advantage, but the author also loses something which can have a direct consequence for their career, an institutional target or a funding requirement.
What happens to papers already published?
Scopus states that when a journal is discontinued, content already indexed will normally remain in the database as part of the scientific record. In exceptional cases involving proven and severe unethical publishing practices, previously indexed content may be removed, but that is not the normal position.
For an author whose article was published and indexed before coverage ended, the formal answer may therefore appear reassuring. The paper remains in Scopus, its citations can still be recorded and the author can accurately state that it was published in a journal covered by Scopus at the time.
The reputational answer is less straightforward. A promotion committee, prospective employer or research evaluator may see that the journal was subsequently discontinued and wonder why. They may even just register the fact that the journal is not Scopus indexed, without considering the journal’s history.
The author may have done nothing wrong and may have submitted when there was no obvious cause for concern, yet the later decision can still cast a shadow over an earlier publication.
It would be unfair to assume that every article in a discontinued journal is poor or that every author should have anticipated the decision. Discontinuation is a judgement about the continued coverage of the source, not an individual assessment of every paper it has published. However, it would also be unrealistic to pretend that the journal’s changed status will never affect how those papers are viewed.
What if the manuscript is still under review?
The position is different for an author whose manuscript has been submitted but not accepted. If Scopus indexing was an important reason for selecting the journal, the basis on which the submission decision was made has materially changed.
Requesting withdrawal therefore seems entirely legitimate. The author should explain the reason clearly, ask the journal to confirm that the manuscript has been withdrawn and wait for that confirmation before submitting elsewhere. Authors must not assume that silence from the journal amounts to agreement, because doing so could result in the manuscript being under consideration by two journals simultaneously.
COPE’s position is that authors can generally withdraw manuscripts before copyright assignment or payment, while also warning that withdrawal should not be used to facilitate multiple submissions. The ethical course is not simply to send the paper elsewhere, but to complete the withdrawal properly and retain the relevant correspondence.
A responsible journal should not obstruct such a request. If it knows that authors submitted partly because of its advertised Scopus status, it should recognise that the conditions have changed and allow authors to reconsider without imposing a withdrawal fee.
Accepted, but not yet published
The most difficult cases arise after acceptance. The author may have signed a publishing agreement, completed corrections, paid an APC or received confirmation that the article is “in press”. At this stage, the distinction between acceptance and publication becomes crucial.
An accepted manuscript that has not yet become the Version of Record (i.e. the definitive, peer-reviewed, and formally published version of a scholarly article) may still be capable of withdrawal, although the contractual position will vary. The journal may argue that substantial editorial and production work has already been completed. The author may respond that the publication is no longer likely to provide one of the benefits that materially influenced the decision to submit.
Once the Version of Record has been published, withdrawal becomes much more difficult. Removing a published article is not equivalent to withdrawing a manuscript from peer review because the scholarly record has already been created.
Authors with papers described as “online first”, “early view” or “in press” should therefore establish exactly what those terms mean. Has a DOI been activated? Is the article citable? Has the Version of Record been released, and does it fall within the journal’s final Scopus coverage period?
These questions should be put to the journal in writing. An author should not rely on a general assurance that the journal “was indexed when the paper was accepted”, because Scopus coverage relates to the content that is actually included in the database, not simply the date on an acceptance letter.
Should APCs be refunded?
The APC question may generate the strongest reactions. Suppose an author paid several thousand dollars to publish in a journal that advertised itself as Scopus indexed, only to learn before publication that new content will no longer be included.
There is no universal answer. The legal position will depend on the journal’s terms, the representations it made, the timing of the payment, the stage of production and the law governing the agreement. An APC may be described as paying for editorial administration, production, hosting and open access, rather than guaranteeing inclusion in an independent indexing service.
Even so, the ethical question remains. If Scopus status was prominently used to market the journal, can the publisher fairly argue that it was irrelevant to the transaction once the indexing has been lost?
The case for a refund appears strongest where the article has not been published, the author acts promptly and the journal continues to display outdated indexing information. It is weaker once the article has been published and indexed, because the journal can claim that it delivered the publication and open access services for which the APC was charged.
Between those positions lies a difficult middle ground. The article may have been accepted and the APC paid, but publication will occur after Scopus coverage ends. A fair response would be to give authors a genuine choice between proceeding with full knowledge of the journal’s new status or withdrawing with all, or at least most, of the APC returned.
This does not necessarily mean that every author would choose to withdraw. The journal may still have an appropriate readership, a respected editorial board and a valuable role within its discipline. The important point is that the author should make that decision with accurate information rather than discovering the change after publication.
Who should tell the authors?
Authors should not have to discover discontinuation accidentally through social media, a colleague or a spreadsheet downloaded from Scopus. Journals know which manuscripts are under review, accepted, in production and awaiting publication, so they are best placed to identify those most directly affected.
At a minimum, a discontinued journal should promptly update its website and contact every corresponding author with an active manuscript. That communication should explain the final coverage position, whether the paper is expected to be indexed, the options for withdrawal and the consequences for any APC already paid.
The journal should also remove or qualify claims that it is currently indexed by Scopus. Continuing to advertise an outdated status could influence new authors to submit on a false or misleading basis, even if the failure to update the website was initially an oversight.
Universities also have a role. Research offices and libraries should help authors interpret the decision rather than merely adding the journal to an internal warning list. They should distinguish between papers already indexed, papers within the publication pipeline and future submissions, because each group faces a different level of risk.
The risk should not rest entirely with authors
Journals gain submissions, income and credibility from their Scopus status. Universities gain measurable research outputs, while indexing services gain authority because institutions use their decisions to evaluate research.
Yet when coverage ends, the individual researcher may be left to resolve the consequences. The author must explain the publication to a promotion panel, negotiate withdrawal, seek an APC refund and decide whether months of review and revision have been wasted.
That is not a balanced system. A journal cannot guarantee that Scopus will index it forever, but it can be transparent, communicate quickly and treat affected authors fairly. Universities cannot prevent a journal being discontinued, but they can avoid retrospectively penalising researchers who made a reasonable choice based on the information available at the time.
Universities should also be cautious about policies that treat indexing status as a simple binary measure of research quality. If a publication is rewarded when its journal is indexed but treated with suspicion when the same journal is later discontinued, the assessment may say more about the database than it does about the research.
And what about universities?
This edition has focused primarily on authors, but universities also have reason to be concerned. Institutional funds may have supported the research and paid the APC, while Scopus coverage may influence recruitment, promotion, research assessment and the monitoring of publication targets.
Universities also have a strong interest in rankings and bibliometric performance. Papers already indexed will normally remain within Scopus, but articles published after the journal’s final coverage date may not be captured. Institutions therefore need to understand which outputs are affected, avoid retrospectively penalising researchers and reconsider policies that place excessive weight on a journal’s indexing status.
Final thought
Twelve journals losing forward Scopus coverage may look like a small administrative update. For the authors connected to those journals, however, it can alter the value, timing and perceived legitimacy of work that may have taken years to complete.
The central question is not simply whether a journal remains indexed. It is whether the institutions that benefit from indexing are prepared to share responsibility when that status disappears, or whether the author is expected to carry the risk alone.
About the Author
Professor Graham Kendall is Vice-Chancellor of GlobalNxt University, Malaysia, and an Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham. Over the past 25 years, he has published more than 300 peer-reviewed papers and has served as Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor of several international journals. Through Publishing with Integrity, he explores the ethical, governance and practical challenges facing scholarly publishing, encouraging greater transparency, integrity and informed debate across the global research community.