IFERP Institute for Engineering Research and Publication offers Scopus-indexed open-access journals that provide a platform for researchers and scholars to publish their work with high visibility and accessibility. These journals showcase the latest advancements and breakthroughs in various fields, covering a wide range of disciplines. With the prestigious Scopus indexing, the journals ensure global recognition and credibility. Researchers can explore cutting-edge perspectives, unveil new knowledge, and contribute to emerging trends. IFERP's Scopus-indexed open-access journals are dedicated to promoting scientific innovation, fostering collaboration, and disseminating impactful research to a broad audience of academics, professionals, and enthusiasts. learn more information: https://www.iferp.in/journals-and-publications.php

1. Why, when, and how to get your journals
indexed in Scopus | IFERP
The process of getting a journal indexed in Scopus, the world's most popular abstract
and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature, can be a challenging and
time-consuming task. However, by adhering strictly to global Scopus paper
publication standards, ethics, and practices, you can increase your chances of being
accepted into the prestigious Scopus database. The importance of being indexed in
Scopus cannot be overstated, as it can greatly enhance the visibility, reach and impact
of your journal among academic and research communities worldwide. In this article,
we'll delve deeper into the best way to get a journal indexed in Scopus and provide
valuable insights and tips to help you navigate the process successfully. We will explore
the key elements that make a journal eligible for inclusion in the Scopus database, such
as the importance of having a rigorous peer-review process, maintaining high standards
of quality, and adhering to ethical guidelines. Additionally, we will discuss the various
criteria and requirements that your journal can use to improve its chances of being
accepted. By following the best practices outlined in this article, your journal can help
ensure that your journal meets the rigorous standards set by Scopus and takes its
rightful place among the world's top scholarly publications.
Why Were Global Academic Journal Publishing Standards Established?
● To address lapses in publication and research ethics, COPE was established in
1997.
● Its goal is to promote best practices and practical solutions for handling
problems.
● It is a nonprofit organization that offers a discussion platform and guidance for
scientific editors.
● It was considered that it's crucial to make an effort to outline best practices for
scientific publishing ethics.

2. ● These recommendations ought to be beneficial to writers, editors, editorial board
members, readers, journal owners, and publishers.
● All technical and scientific academic programs should actively promote
intellectual honesty, which may then be utilized to guide publishing ethics and
deter wrongdoing.
● These guidelines have been created with that in mind.
● Journals should actively look to seek out information on additional published
codes of conduct and ethics standards for researchers.
How Were These Standards Established?
● The guidelines were created from an initial draft created by individual committee
members, which underwent significant consultation.
● They include topics such as study design, ethical approval, data analysis,
authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, redundant publication, plagiarism,
editor responsibilities, media relations, advertising, and how to handle
misconduct.
What They Aim To Accomplish
● These recommendations are meant to be indicative rather than mandatory and to
change over time.
● It was anticipated that they would be widely used, approved by editors, and
improved upon by their users.
Measures To Take To Become A Scopus-Indexed Journal
● Measure #1
Design Of The Research Study & Ethical Compliance
● Good research ought to be ethically acceptable, well-justified, well-planned, and
adequately designed.

3. ● It might be improper to perform research at a lesser standard.
● Your journal should implement the following to become considered for a Scopus
database indexation -
● Protocols should guide experimental and laboratory research, and written
justifications for pilot experiments are required.
● Rather than just gathering data, research processes should aim to provide
answers to specific problems.
● All contributors and collaborators, including, if applicable, participants, must
thoroughly approve protocols.
● The final protocol ought to be included in the study file.
● It is advisable to reach an early agreement regarding the specific contributions
and collaborations, as well as authorship and publication issues.
● To guarantee that there are not too few or too many participants, statistical
considerations, including power estimates, should be taken into account early in
the study design.
● All experiments involving individuals, medical data, or anonymized human
tissues must receive formal, documented ethical approval from a research ethics
committee that has been properly constituted.
● The best ethical guidelines should be followed when using human tissues in
research.
● Consent should always be obtained with full knowledge.
● However, it might not always be practicable, and in those cases, a properly
established research ethics committee should determine if this is morally
acceptable.
● International norms should be followed when subjects cannot provide fully
informed permission.
● Local licensing laws and national, ethical, and regulatory standards must all be
strictly followed when conducting animal research. Different international norms
exist.
● All research projects should get formal supervision, typically the duty of the
principal investigator; this supervision must involve quality control, frequent

4. evaluation, and long-term retention (perhaps up to fifteen years) of all records
and primary outputs.
● Measure #2
The Thorough Evaluation Of Data Prior To Publication
● Data should be analyzed properly, although improper analysis does not always
constitute misbehavior.
● Data fabrication and data falsification do qualify as misconduct. Consider the
following measures -
● All data collection and analysis procedures, including any electronic pre-
processing, should be completely disclosed; any exclusions should be supported
by thorough justifications.
● If the methods of analysis are uncommon, they must be fully described with
references.
● Subgroup post hoc analysis is permissible as long as it is acknowledged. It is
inappropriate to fail to state that the analysis was post hoc.
● Any issues of bias that have been taken into consideration should be mentioned
in the discussion part of a manuscript, along with an explanation of how they
were addressed in the study's design and interpretation.
● Measure #3
Strict Guidelines For Authorship
● Although attempts have been made, there is no one definition of authorship that
is accepted worldwide.
● Authors should, at the very least, be accountable for their portion of the study.
● The following measures must be implemented -
● The determination of authorship should take into account the intellectual
contributions made to the study's idea, design, analysis, and writing, as well as
the data collecting and other routine tasks. An individual should not be given
authorship credit if there is no task that can be reasonably attributed to them.

5. ● It is helpful to decide early on in the design of a research project which will be
attributed as authors, as collaborators, and who will be acknowledged in order to
prevent disagreements over the attribution of academic credit.
● All authors are required to publicly accept responsibility for their paper's content.
This can be challenging due to the multidisciplinary character of much research,
but it can be overcome by the disclosure of individual contributions.
● Given the current uncertainty, it is suggested that authors carefully read the
"Advice to Authors" section of the target journal.
● Measure #4
Having A System In Place For Quickly Identifying Potential Forgery & Dealing
With Perpetrators With An Iron Hand
● Conflicts of interest include those that may not always be clear, and that may
affect the decision-making of the author, reviewers, and editors.
● It has been said that they are those that, if discovered afterward, would cause a
logical reader to feel misled or duped.
● They could be financial, scholarly, political, commercial, or personal.
● Employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures
or travel, consulting work, and employee benefits are all examples of "financial"
interests.
● As a journal that's looking to get itself Scopus-indexed, you should take note of
the following -
● Researchers, authors, and reviewers must disclose any relevant conflicts of
interest to editors.
● Editors must inform readers of any pertinent conflicts of interest. Tell the truth if
unsure. Editors may occasionally need to withdraw from the assessment and
decision-making procedure for the pertinent submission.
● Measure #5
Having An Infalliable Peer-Review System In Place

6. ● Peer reviewers are outside professionals who have been hand-selected by
editors to offer written comments with the intention of improving the study.
● The best journals (especially legitimate fast publishing Scopus journals) have
different working practices.
● However, some employ open procedures where the name of the reviewer is
made public along with the complete or "modified" report.
● Your journal should take heed of the following -
● While suggestions from writers for potential reviewers are frequently helpful,
editors shouldn't be obligated to use those made.
● Expert reviewers have a duty of confidentiality when evaluating a manuscript,
and this duty extends to the reviewers' coworkers, who may be asked (with the
editor's consent) to provide input on particular portions.
● Neither keeping nor copying the submitted manuscript is permitted.
● Reviewers and editors must obtain permission from the authors before using any
of the information, justifications, or conclusions.
● Reports from reviewers should be prompt, accurate, polite, impartial, and
justified.
● Reviewers should communicate in confidence to the editor if they have any
suspicions of wrongdoing.
● Journals should accurately detail their peer review, selection, and appeals
processes in their publications.
● Journals ought to routinely assess their acceptance rates and turnaround
timeframes.
● Measure #6
Dealing With Duplicate Publications
● Redundant publication happens when the same hypothesis, data, discussion
points, or conclusions are used in two or more works without a complete cross-
reference. As a journal, you should -
● If additional confirmation is not needed, published studies don't need to be
replicated.

7. ● Publishing an abstract in the conference proceedings beforehand does not
prevent it from being submitted again for publication; however, full disclosure
should be made at the time of submission.
● Re-publication of a manuscript in a different language is permissible as long as
the original source is fully and prominently disclosed at the time of submission.
● Authors should disclose information on related papers, even if they are written in
a foreign language, and related papers that are currently under consideration.
● Measure #7
Knowing How To Deal With The Issue Of Plagiarism
● The numerous types of plagiarism include the unreferenced use of other people's
published and unpublished ideas, such as in research funding applications, and
the submission of an entire article under the guise of a "new" author, sometimes
in a foreign language.
● It can happen at any point throughout the planning, research, writing, or
publication process and affects both print and digital versions.
● As a journal, you should consider the following measure -
● All sources must be acknowledged, and permission must be obtained before
using a significant quantity of another person's writing or artwork.
● Measure #8
Regulate & Ensure Editors' Obligations
● The custodians of journals are the editors. Typically, they take over the magazine
from the previous editor(s) and always want to turn it over in good condition.
● The majority of editors establish a solid management team and give the
publication direction.
● The interests of several stakeholders, including readers, authors, employees,
owners, editorial board members, advertising, and the media, must be taken into
account.

8. ● Editors should solely consider a paper's significance, originality, clarity, and
relevance to the journal's scope when deciding whether to approve or reject it for
publication.
● Studies that contradict earlier research in the publication should be given special
consideration.
● Studies with contradictory findings shouldn't be disregarded.
● Before being published, all original studies should undergo peer review, which
should fully account for any bias resulting from related or competing interests.
● All articles submitted must be treated as secret by editors.
● Editors are required to take responsibility for swiftly and prominently correcting
the record when significant errors are later discovered in an article that has
already been published.
● Measure #9
Pay Heed To Media Relations
● The print and broadcast media are becoming more interested in the results of
medical research.
● Journalists may attend scientific Scopus conferences where early research
findings are presented, which could result in their premature media coverage.
● Writers who are contacted by the media should provide a fair assessment of their
work, making sure to distinguish between fact and conjecture.
● It is encouraged to publish a study simultaneously in a peer-reviewed journal and
the general public because this generally indicates that sufficient data and
supporting evidence have been presented to satisfy knowledgeable and
discerning readers.
● Authors should avoid providing additional information to journalists when this is
not possible, but they should assist them in writing accurate reports.
● If there are clinical consequences, every effort should be made to guarantee that
patients who have contributed to the research are told of the findings by the
authors before the general public.

9. ● If journalists are invited to attend scientific events, the organizers should let the
authors know.
● Authors might find it useful to be informed of any media policies in place at the
journal where their work will be published.
● Measure #10
Playing The Advertising Game With Discernment
● Advertising is an important source of funding for many scientific journals and
conferences.
● Reprints could also be profitable.
● Editorial and advertising management must be clearly segregated so that
advertising revenue or the potential for reprints does not affect editorial
decisions.
● Editors must be willing to publish comments and refuse misleading
advertisements, using the same standards as the rest of the journal's content.
● Unless a correction needs to be added, reprints should be reprinted exactly as
they were in the original publication.
● Measure #11
Addressing Any Potential Misbehaviours
● The overarching rule confirming wrongdoing is the desire to persuade others to
believe something that is untrue.
● As a result, it is important to consider the intention of the participating researcher,
author, editor, reviewer, or publisher in addition to the specific act or omission
under consideration.
● Deception can occur intentionally, negligently, or with reckless disregard for
potential repercussions. Therefore, it follows that "best practise" necessitates
complete honesty and full disclosure.
● Codes of practice can only serve to increase awareness.
● Measure #12

10. Looking Into Sort Of Wrongdoings & Dealing With Them
● When papers raise concerns about misbehavior, editors shouldn't automatically
reject them.
They must pursue the matter because it is morally right to. However, it might be
challenging to know how to look into and react to potential misbehavior incidents.
● Research publication standards agencies are always prepared to offer advice,
but due to legal constraints, they can only do so in cases that are anonymized.
● The editor has the last say on what to do.
● Measure #13
Being Aware Of What To Do When There Are Serious Infractions
● Editors must take all accusations and suspicions of misbehavior seriously, but
they must also acknowledge that they frequently lack the resources or the legal
authority to go into significant situations.
● The editor must choose when to notify the accused author's employers(s).
● While some proof is required, editors do not need to put together a convincing
argument if employers have a procedure for looking at complaints, which they
are increasingly expected to do. Since doing so typically entails consulting
specialists, it may be unethical for editors to do so because it raises important
issues about the author(s).
● Editors should notify the author(s) that they are reporting any major wrongdoing
to the employers if they are presented with convincing evidence—possibly by
reviewers.
● Editors should secretly consult experts if allegations of serious wrongdoing are
not supported by strong evidence.
● Editors should alert the employers if the specialists seriously contest the
research.

11. ● The editorial processes should continue as usual if the experts find no proof of
malfeasance.
● Cases may be referred to the General Medical Council if strong evidence of
significant wrongdoing is produced, there is no employer to whom this can be
reported, and the author(s) are licensed physicians.
● The editor may conclude that the case is significant enough to deserve
publication in the journal if, however, there is no organization with the authority
and resources to launch an investigation. Then, legal counsel will be necessary.
● Editors may believe that publishing a notice in the journal is appropriate if they
are certain that an employer has not adequately investigated a significant claim.
Legal counsel will be necessary.
● Those who have been accused of significant misbehavior by authors should be
given the chance to respond.
● Measure #14
Knowing How To Deal With Less Serious Infractions
● Editors may choose those less serious incidents of wrongdoing, such as
redundant publication, authorship fraud, or failing to make apparent a conflict of
interest, which may not require the involvement of employers. Even while it would
be prudent to select an impartial expert, there are occasions when the facts
might speak for themselves.
● Editors should keep in mind that even seemingly modest allegations of
wrongdoing could have major repercussions for the author or authors,
necessitating a request for an investigation from the employers.
● Authors ought to be given the chance to address any allegations of minor
misbehavior.
● Editors may want to enact some of the punishments listed below if they are
persuaded that misbehavior has occurred.
● Measure #15
Imposing Sanctions Wherever & Whenever Applicable

12. ● Sanctions may be combined or applied singly.
● The following are rated roughly according to their severity -
● Where there appears to be a true misinterpretation of the principles, a letter of
explanation (and education) to the writers.
● A letter of censure and advice on behavior going forward.
● A official letter to the proper institution's or financing organization's head.
● Publishing a notification of plagiarism or repetitive publication.
● A detailed editorial outlining the misbehavior.
● For a predetermined amount of time, refuse to accept any more submissions
from the person, group, or organization that committed the wrongdoing.
● Notifying other editors and the indexing authority of the formal withdrawal or
retraction of the manuscript from the scientific literature.
● Reporting the incident to the General Medical Council or any appropriate body or
organization that can look into it and take appropriate action.
● Measure #16
Having A Peer Review System That Is Foolproof
● All world-class reviewers who evaluate papers for any journal, as well as all
reviewers of any manuscript submitted to a Scopus publication, are expected to
adhere to the highest standards and these rules.
● Peer review is a crucial step in publishing and, by extension, in research.
● It aids in ensuring that research is properly planned and carried out and that
published articles explain experiments that concentrate on central themes.
● Additionally, it encourages the presentation of methods in enough detail to allow
for replication, the use of clear, thoroughly analyzed data, and data-supported
conclusions.
● Finally, it encourages accurate citation of earlier works of literature.
● Peer review acts as a safety for both the authors and the readers in these ways.
Rule #1

13. ● The interests of the scientific community are served by thorough scientific
examination. Peer review is a very important precaution, even though readers of
scientific publications must decide for themselves how well-written a research
article is. First, it gives readers some assurance that the content is of high
quality, which is crucial in subjects that they are unfamiliar with. Second, reading
a piece of writing that doesn't adhere to acknowledged norms takes less time.
Therefore, it is crucial that reviewers thoroughly assess a document, which
frequently takes several hours. All facets of the text should be fairly evaluated in
a thorough evaluation.
Rule #2
● Accepting a request to examine a work entails an implied commitment to provide
a complete assessment in a timely manner.
Rule #3
● With due consideration for the upholding of high standards of communication, a
reviewer should take into account the caliber and importance of the experimental
and theoretical work, the wholeness of the description of methods and materials,
the logical foundation of the interpretation of the outcomes, and the exposition.
Rule #4
● Reviews should contain constructive criticism and, if necessary, an indication of
any places where a statement could need to be supplemented with references to
existing literature.
Rule #5
● A thorough review must take into account both a manuscript's scientific merit and
its ethical implications. Experiments must be carried out and reported in an
ethical manner. The reviewer has a crucial function to play in preserving the

14. integrity of the scientific literature, even though the authors bear the major duty
for this assurance.
Rule #6
● A reviewer is required to take into account the ethical implications of a
manuscript and should alert the editor of any concerns about ethical norms being
broken in the study or reporting. The editor should then promptly ask pertinent
questions of the authors.
Rule #7
● Among the topics available for discussion are, but are not limited to, unethical
treatment of animals and human subjects, fabrication or falsification, wrong data
analysis, the use of deceptive visuals, duplicate publication, and incorrect or
omitted reference of other people's work (including plagiarism).
Rule #8
● When asked to review a manuscript, all scientists are encouraged to take part, if
at all possible. Thousands of publications relating to neuroscience are submitted
to journals every year for review. The obligations assumed by diligent people are
reduced by spreading out the task of examining these articles as widely as
possible, which contributes to the availability of competence in many fields and a
diversity of opinions.
Rule #9
● Unless specifically indicated in the instructions for authors and reviewers, or
unless a reviewer requests disclosure, the anonymity of reviewers should be
maintained.
Rule #10

15. ● Both authors and reviewers should adhere to the confidentiality policies
established by the relevant journal, keeping in mind that these restrictions can
vary greatly between journals.Because it is believed that disclosure would
prevent an adequate review, the majority of journals in neurology and related
subjects refrain from disclosing reviewers' names to the authors of papers.
However, such publications typically give the reviewer access to the authors'
names because it is believed that knowing who the writers are can help them
assess the quality of a submission. For instance, it could be crucial to know if a
specific author has expertise in a particular technique. When there is such an
imbalance in the information, neither the quality nor the confidentiality of the
review process should be compromised.
Rule #11
● Reviewers shouldn't talk to authors about a book they are considering. Similarly,
authors should only speak with the editor and not start such a conversation with
a reviewer. When an author tries to contact a reviewer repeatedly, the reviewer
should alert the editor.
Rule #12
● When selecting reviewers for a particular manuscript, attention should be paid to
their high qualifications and objectivity. Reviewers who are actively engaged in
the field of study covered by submission are frequently the most qualified.
However, in order for the peer review procedure to be successful, writers and
editors must also be confident in the reviewers' objectivity. For these reasons,
when reviewing a particular paper, reviewers should be alert for any conflicts of
interest or appearances of such conflicts.
Rule #13

16. ● A person who is asked to review a manuscript but feels unqualified to make an
assessment of it should promptly return the document without reviewing it and
inform the editor of the situation.
Rule #14
● People must disclose any potential conflicts of interest they may have with
respect to a submission to the editor. If they feel that the conflict may
compromise their objectivity, they should reject to review the manuscript.
Instances of a conflict of interest could potentially include but aren't limited to - a
manuscript that's so closely connected to the potential reviewer's work in
progress that it would be taught to ensure that the reviewer would not be
impacted by reading the manuscript; a manuscript that vehemently advocates or
contradicts the potential reviewer's ideas; an author who has recently worked
with the potential reviewer as a mentor, student, collaborator, or protagonist.
Rule #15
● If uncertain, a potential reviewer should -promptly return the manuscript without
reviewing it and inform the editor of the situation, get in touch with the editor and
rely on their judgment regarding whether or not to accept the position of a
reviewer, or explain the potential conflict of interest to the editor in a confidential
comment that is included with the review.
Rule #16
● Reviews shouldn't include foul language or make personal attacks. Reviewers do
not need to refrain from offering criticism; in fact, this is better for science.
Reviewers should, however, make polite comments. It is inappropriate to use foul
language or make personal remarks against the writers; doing so could cast
doubt on the reliability of the reviewer's observations. If it's necessary to maintain
decorum, editors may decide to edit a review.

17. Rule #17
● Reviews need to be prompt and comprehensive. A review must be complete,
objective, and timely, among other things.Authors gain from timely criticism, such
as when a new experiment or method improvement is suggested.Furthermore,
priority - publishing a finding ahead of time - is frequently a crucial factor in
assessing an author's output.
Rule #18
● Reviewers must be given the time they need to conduct a complete evaluation,
and they should do so. They must also promptly submit their assessment of the
manuscript. It is widely believed that two weeks is typically enough time to finish
reviewing a full-length document.
Rule #19
● If a reviewer is asked to consider a manuscript at a time when other
commitments prevent them from doing so right away, they should politely
decline. As an alternative, the reviewer may alert the editor to potential delays,
suggest a new deadline for the review, and rely on the editor's assessment of
whether a delay is acceptable.
Rule #20
● Reviewers are forbidden from using a manuscript's non-public information to
further their own research or professional goals. The resources required for
research are limited and are largely given to those who are credited with the
greatest concepts and the highest levels of output. However, authors voluntarily
send their work in for review even if they won't be given credit. Therefore, it is
crucial that reviewers do not misuse their privileged positions by trying to gain an
advantage of their early access to novel concepts, procedures, or data.
Rule #21

18. ● Unless the information has been made public through another source, such as
an abstract or a presentation at a meeting, a stock offering, or a new article,
reviewers shouldn't use any facts, theories, or interpretations found in a
manuscript that is being considered to further their own research.
Rule #22
● There is one exception to this rule: It would be ethical for the reviewer to halt the
research if information learned via the evaluation of a manuscript suggests that
any of the reviewer's own research work will most likely turn out to be
unsuccessful.
Rule #23
● Until the manuscript is published or the information in the manuscript becomes
publicly available through some other means, people shouldn't buy or sell shares
in a company whose product features significantly in a manuscript they are
examining. They shouldn't either buy or sell shares of a rival company based on
private information in a manuscript they have seen.
Rule #24
● Information in a manuscript that is being reviewed is private and should not be
disclosed to anyone. The same justification that forbids reviewers from making
money off of their early access to a paper also requires that reviewers respect
the material as confidential. If getting additional guidance is best for the review
process, it must be done while being mindful of issues of confidentiality and
conflict of interest and in accordance with the policies of the journal.
Rule #25

19. ● Reviewers and their administrative employees who work with the manuscript
shouldn't talk or share it with anyone else unless it's an absolute necessity for a
complete review, and even then, only if it's in accordance with the editor's
instructions.
Rule #26
● The reviewer should ask the editor for permission if the journal's guidelines
permit it in the event that expert opinion is judged appropriate and calls for
disclosing confidential material. This will enable the editor to ascertain whether
the manuscript's authors have asked that the specific person not be designated
as a reviewer.
Rule #27
● The number of extra colleagues the designated reviewer consults should be
maintained to a minimum. Additionally, it is the reviewer's duty to make sure that
each of these people is aware of all important provisions of these Guidelines and
other pertinent rules for the particular journal, particularly those pertaining to
conflicts of interest and confidentiality.
Rule #28
● Reviewers are allowed to teach their apprentices how to conduct peer reviews.
For training purposes, a reviewer may insert a current lab employee with the
necessary skills into the procedure. In such cases, the reviewer is in charge of
making sure the trainee complies with all confidentiality responsibilities and is
required to provide the trainee's identity to the journal. The reviewer is still solely
accountable for the review's quality and content.
Rule #29
● The person to whom the manuscript was initially delivered bears final
responsibility for the accuracy of the review and for ensuring that subsequent

20. readers do not damage the integrity of the review process unless otherwise
agreed upon by the editor or specified in the instructions.
Rule #30
● The reviewer must list every person who contributed to the private review.
Rule #31
● Reviewers should be aware that until a copyright agreement has been executed
between the authors and the publisher, unpublished manuscripts are still the
authors' property.
● Measure #17
Having An Editorial System That Is Foolproof
● If errors are found in a manuscript before it is published, the editor should fix
them; if they are found thereafter, corrections should be published.
● Honest mistakes can be undetected until after an article has been submitted or
even published, as in the case of reagents that later turn out to be less precise
than first thought or measurement tools that turn out to be wrong.
● Sometimes calculations are incorrect, or a crucial paper is found too late. Any
person may bring up the likelihood of error, including authors, reviewers, editors,
and others.
● In each instance, it is crucial that the editor thoroughly examines the potential
error after it has been identified.
● The editor and publisher should offer a method for making a correction or
retraction when errors materially impact some part of a piece.
Rule #1

21. ● An editor should contact all writers as quickly as feasible and ask for correction
whenever a mistake or apparent mistake is brought to their attention by someone
other than the author.
Rule #2
● Corrective action should be taken if an error has the potential to materially impact
a manuscript or published article. If a document hasn't already been published,
the errors must be fixed before it may be released, failing which, the release
should be postponed or cancelled. The journal where the original paper first
appeared should issue a report regarding the error if the piece has already been
published.
Rule #3
● The authors of reports that have previously been released should always be
given a chance to address and disclose any inaccuracies. The journal editor
should publish a notice of correction or, in more severe circumstances, retract
the article if the authors fail to do so within a reasonable amount of time.
Rule #4
● All correction or retraction announcements must be clearly displayed in the
journal where the original report was published and include a complete
bibliographic citation to the original article or abstract. Additionally, it must be
noted on the contents page and clearly marked (e.g., erratum, retraction, or
apologia).
In conclusion, getting a journal indexed in Scopus is a challenging but highly rewarding
task that can greatly enhance the visibility, reach and impact of your journal among
academic and research communities worldwide. The key to success is to adhere strictly
to global journal publication standards, ethics, and practices. This includes having a
rigorous peer-review process, maintaining high standards of quality, and adhering to

22. ethical guidelines. By following the best practices outlined in this article, you can
improve your chances of being accepted into the club of Scopus indexed journals in
Engineering.
Additionally, it is vital to keep in mind that the process of getting indexed in Scopus is
ongoing and requires consistent efforts to maintain the standards, ethics, and practices.
This can be done by regularly monitoring the journal's performance, implementing
necessary changes and improvements, and staying updated with the latest trends and
developments in the field. By staying committed to these principles, you can help
ensure that your journal meets the rigorous standards set by Scopus and takes its
rightful place among the world's top scholarly publications.
In summary, getting indexed in Scopus is a significant achievement, and it is important
to remember that it is a long-term investment. By adhering to the global journal
publication standards, ethics and practices, you can increase your chances of being
accepted into the Scopus database and, in turn, give your journal the recognition and
visibility it deserves.