Transparent criteria
Every criterion belongs to a named, dated and versioned methodology.
Independent Scholarly Evaluation
Journal decisions grounded in evidence.
SIIFI combines transparent criteria, verified journal information, citation evidence and accountable human review to produce independent journal-level evaluation records.
- Versioned methodology
- Evidence provenance
- Human authorization
Decision architecture
Human-gated
Evidence moves through identity checks, structured review, citation analysis and human authorization before a public record can be released.
Decision boundary Automation cannot approve, reject or publish.
Responsible evaluation
Evidence before numbers. Context before conclusions.
A journal decision is built from identity, governance, publishing practice, technical reliability, citation evidence and documented human judgement. No single number is treated as a complete description of quality.
Traceable evidence
Evidence and citation data retain source, coverage and retrieval information.
Contextual judgement
Discipline, language, publishing history and evidence limitations accompany interpretation.
Accountable release
Only an authorized human decision can change a public evaluation record.
Evaluation pathway
From verified application to public record
Each stage has a defined control owner and produces an auditable record.
-
1
Identity and eligibility
Journal identity, ISSN information, website ownership, publication history and baseline eligibility evidence are checked.
Automated checks + human verification -
2
Evidence review
Policies, editorial governance, peer-review information, publication records and technical evidence are reviewed against the assigned rubric.
Human-led review -
3
Citation-data analysis
Citation records are checked for coverage, duplicates, exclusions, provenance and self-citation context before a metric is considered.
Analyst review + controlled calculation -
4
Decision review
Completed evidence, criterion scores, flags and reviewer findings are examined before an authorised decision is prepared.
Human-only decision -
5
Controlled public release
Only an authorised and complete decision can update the public journal profile or make a result eligible for certificate issuance.
Authorised human release
Evaluation tracks
Two pathways, one standard of transparency
Selective and Standard evaluation tracks apply different evidence depth and review requirements while preserving the same principles of traceability, fairness and human accountability.
Selective Evaluation
For journals seeking a strict, multi-reviewer and evidence-intensive assessment.
- Deeper evidence requirements
- Minimum reviewer control
- Independent second authorization
- Versioned re-evaluation cycle
Standard Evaluation
For eligible developing, regional, institutional, multilingual and emerging journals.
- Baseline integrity requirements
- Context-sensitive evidence
- Human-authorized outcome
- Documented improvement conditions
Evidence model
What the evaluation examines
Journal identity and practice are assessed separately from citation performance, then interpreted together.
Read Evaluation & MetricsJournal identity
Title, identifiers, ownership and publishing continuity.
Editorial governance
Editorial roles, independence and accountable oversight.
Review and ethics
Peer-review process, disclosures, corrections and complaints.
Technical standards
Metadata, secure access, archive reliability and accessibility.
Citation evidence
Coverage, provenance, exclusions and self-citation context.
Continuing compliance
Review dates, corrections, conditions and material changes.
Research intelligence
Automated assistance with a human decision gate
Automated tools may organise evidence, detect inconsistencies and flag data-quality concerns. They cannot approve or reject a journal, publish a result or issue a certificate.
Automation may assistMetadata checksDuplicate flagsEvidence organisationAnomaly detection
Human authorization requiredCriterion judgementFinal outcomePublic releaseCertificate eligibility
Decision meaning
Decision outcomes with clear meaning
A decision may be approved, approved with conditions, deferred or not approved. Every released result identifies its methodology version, evaluation period and review date.
Approved
Required evidence and authorization controls have been completed.
Approved with conditions
Approval is accompanied by documented conditions and a review date.
Deferred
Further evidence, time or corrective action is required before a final outcome.
Not approved
The released decision explains the outcome without creating a metric or certificate.
Record accountability
Corrections, reconsideration and appeals
Publishers may request correction of factual information or submit a documented appeal within the stated period. The original decision remains preserved in the audit history.
Questions and clarity
Frequently asked questions
Does payment guarantee approval?
No. Payment supports the evaluation process and does not guarantee approval, a score, a certificate or any favourable outcome.
Can artificial intelligence make the final decision?
No. Automated tools may assist with checking and evidence organisation, but the final decision and public release require authorised human review.
Is a pending Journal List entry an approval?
No. A pending record confirms only that an application record exists. The current public status must be read before interpreting the record.
Can a released decision be corrected?
Yes. Factual corrections, reconsideration and appeals use a versioned workflow. Earlier records remain preserved for accountability.
Independent evaluation notice
SIIFI provides independently developed journal evaluation records, scores and citation indicators. Payment of an evaluation fee does not guarantee approval, a particular score, a certificate or any favourable outcome.
SIIFI support
evaluation@siifi.org
Evaluation enquiries
For questions about eligibility, evidence or an existing evaluation, contact evaluation@siifi.org.