Journal status, metrics, and article processing charges can change independently. This workflow shows you how to verify each variable from authoritative records, capture the evidence in a reusable spreadsheet, compare journals fairly, and know when to repeat the checks before submission or reporting.
Overview
Choosing among peer-reviewed journals requires more than finding a suitable title. A journal may be listed in one database but not another, display several metrics with different definitions, or publish an APC page that applies only to certain article types or authors. Treating these details as a one-time search can lead to outdated decisions.
A better approach is to maintain a journal monitoring record. For every candidate journal, save the exact title, ISSN, publisher, indexing status, metric year, APC information, verification date, and source link. The record becomes useful when you are preparing a manuscript, comparing a short list, completing an annual report, or checking whether a journal still meets an institutional requirement.
Use primary or authoritative sources whenever possible. Check the relevant database directly for indexing, the official metric provider for metric values, and the journal or publisher website for APCs and submission policies. A search result, third-party directory, or journal advertisement can help you locate information, but it should not be the only evidence for an important submission decision.
For a related explanation of the first indexing check, see How to Check Whether a Journal Is Indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. This article extends that process into a recurring tracker.
What to track
1. Journal identity and indexing
Start with the journal’s exact title and identifiers. Record the print ISSN, electronic ISSN, publisher, journal website, and the date you checked them. Identifiers help distinguish journals with similar names and reduce the risk of matching a legitimate title to an imitation website.
Track indexing separately rather than using one broad “indexed” field. Useful columns include Scopus status, Web of Science collection or status, DOAJ status where relevant to open access, and the name of any additional index required by your institution. Add a source URL, a result or status note, and a verification date for each database. If a database record shows coverage years, record those years rather than simply writing “yes.”
Do not treat a claim on a journal homepage as proof of inclusion. Open the relevant database record and compare the title, ISSN, publisher, and coverage details. If the information conflicts, pause the submission decision and investigate the discrepancy.
2. Metrics and their reporting years
Metrics are not interchangeable. A journal impact factor, CiteScore, SJR, and SNIP may use different data, calculation methods, subject classifications, and reporting schedules. Record the metric name, value, year or edition, database, and date checked. Never place a metric value in the spreadsheet without its year.
For a plain-language comparison of common measures, consult Journal Metrics Explained: Impact Factor, CiteScore, SJR, and SNIP Compared. Use the metric that matches the requirement you are trying to meet. For example, an institution asking specifically for a journal impact factor is not necessarily asking for a substitute ranking or a general citation indicator.
3. APCs and payment conditions
Record more than a single APC number. Capture the currency, article type, whether the charge applies after acceptance, possible waivers or discounts, and any distinction between subscription publication and open access publication. Note whether taxes, optional services, color charges, or other fees are described separately. If the publisher provides a fee calculator, save the page and record the assumptions used.
APC information should be verified on the journal’s current author or open access page. A fee quoted in an old departmental document or third-party list may no longer apply. If the page is unclear, keep the APC field as “needs confirmation” instead of inferring a price.
4. Quality and risk signals
Indexing and metrics do not replace basic journal screening. Add columns for peer-review description, editorial contact details, publication ethics information, archive or preservation information, DOI practices, and transparency of fees. These are observations, not automatic verdicts. A missing detail warrants further checking; it is not by itself proof that a journal is predatory.
Use the Predatory Journal Warning Signs checklist when a title makes unusually broad promises, uses unclear editorial information, or requests payment without explaining the publication process.
A practical spreadsheet template
Create one row per journal and use these columns:
Journal title | ISSN/eISSN | Publisher | Subject | Journal URL | Scopus status and coverage | Web of Science status and collection | DOAJ status | Impact Factor and year | CiteScore and year | SJR and year | SNIP and year | APC amount and currency | APC conditions | Waiver notes | Peer-review notes | Risk notes | Source URLs | Checked on | Next review date | Decision
Keep source URLs in separate cells where possible. Add a “change log” sheet with the journal name, field changed, previous value, new value, date, and evidence link. This prevents a new entry from silently replacing the information you relied on earlier.
Illustrative comparison table
| Field | Journal A | Journal B |
|---|---|---|
| Indexing check | Verified in the relevant official record; coverage note saved | Publisher claim found; database record still needs confirmation |
| Metrics | Metric name, value, year, and provider recorded | Several values shown, but reporting years are unclear |
| APC | Current author-page terms saved; article type identified | Fee page refers to multiple article categories; clarification needed |
| Decision | Proceed to scope and submission-policy review | Do not submit until indexing and fees are verified |
This table is an example of record quality, not a ranking of real journals. Your spreadsheet should preserve evidence rather than reduce every journal to a single score.
Cadence and checkpoints
Use a simple schedule that reflects how often the information matters:
- Before initial shortlisting: verify identity, scope, indexing claims, current fees, and the metric requirements that matter to you.
- Before submission: repeat the indexing and APC checks, read the current author guidelines, and confirm that the journal accepts your article type.
- After a major database or publisher update: recheck affected fields rather than waiting for the next routine review.
- Monthly or quarterly: review active target journals, especially those being considered for an imminent submission.
- Annually: refresh all saved metric years, APC terms, links, and institutional compliance notes.
Set a next-review date for every active journal. A spreadsheet filter can then show records due within the next 30 days. Use a status such as “verified,” “needs confirmation,” or “not suitable,” and add a short reason for each decision.
How to interpret changes
A changed metric does not automatically mean that a journal’s editorial quality has improved or declined. First check whether the reporting year, provider, subject category, or calculation method changed. Compare like with like, and avoid combining values from different years in one ranking.
An indexing change deserves closer attention. Confirm whether the journal was added, removed, renamed, or listed with a limited coverage period. Check the ISSN and publisher details again, and save the database result that supports your conclusion. If your institution has a formal list, use its stated definition rather than assuming that all indexes satisfy the same requirement.
An APC change should be read alongside its conditions. The displayed charge may apply only to a specific article type, access route, currency, or author location. Record the effective date if the publisher states one. If a fee page is unavailable or contradictory, contact the journal using the official contact details and keep the answer with your evidence.
Use changes as prompts for review, not as isolated signals. A journal with stable indexing but unclear fees needs a different response from a journal whose title, ISSN, and database record do not match. For submission preparation, also review the research paper formatting checklist and the journal’s current submission guidelines.
When to revisit
Revisit the tracker before every submission, manuscript transfer, or institutional reporting exercise. Repeat the check immediately if the journal changes its publisher, website, title, ISSN, access model, editorial team, or fee policy. A notice about indexing coverage, a newly displayed metric, or a broken official database link is also a reason to investigate.
Use this quick pre-submission checklist:
- Confirm the exact journal title, ISSN, publisher, and official website.
- Verify each required index in the relevant authoritative record.
- Record metric values with their provider, edition, and reporting year.
- Check the current APC page for your article type and access route.
- Save source links, screenshots or notes where appropriate, and the date checked.
- Review peer-review, ethics, DOI, and contact information for consistency.
- Compare the completed record with your institution’s requirements before submitting.
Finally, keep the spreadsheet readable and dated. A modest, consistently updated tracker is more useful than a large research journal list with no evidence trail. When you need to confirm a DOI or metadata detail, pair this workflow with a DOI and ORCID metadata audit. That final check helps ensure that the journal decision, manuscript record, and researcher profile remain aligned.
