Human-ledPublisher
Application
Publisher submits the journal record and supporting evidence.
Public status: Application Received
Independent Evaluation Framework
Evaluation & Metrics
Evidence before numbers. Context before conclusions.
SIIFI combines verified journal identity, publishing standards, evidence quality, citation analytics and accountable human review to create independent journal-level evaluation records.
- Transparent methodology
- Evidence provenance
- Human-approved results
Evaluation architectureHuman accountable
- IdentityVerified record
- EvidencePublishing practice
- CitationsMatched relationships
- JudgementHuman evaluation
- RecordControlled release
Structured journal intelligence
How a journal moves through evaluation
Every stage has a clear purpose and responsible party. Automation assists the work; it does not own the decision.
-
01
-
02HybridSIIFI review
Journal Identity Review
Journal identity, ISSN and publisher details are checked.
Public status: Identity Verification Pending -
03HybridAuthorised evaluator
Eligibility Assessment
Minimum transparency and technical requirements are assessed.
Public status: Identity Verified -
04HybridSIIFI review
Evidence Collection
Policies, publication records and technical evidence are organised.
Public status: Evaluation in Progress -
05HybridCitation review team
Citation Analysis
Eligible records are matched, classified and checked.
Public status: Evaluation in Progress -
06Human-onlyAuthorised evaluator
Human Evaluation
An authorised evaluator reviews the material evidence.
Public status: Evaluation in Progress -
07Human-onlyAuthorised approver
Decision
A documented decision is recorded under a methodology version.
Public status: Decision Pending -
08Human-onlyAuthorised approver
Public Result
Only an approved result is released to the public profile.
Public status: Evaluated -
09HybridSIIFI review
Continuing Review
Changes, corrections and re-evaluation are tracked.
Public status: Current public status
Two evaluation tracks. One standard of evidence.
The tracks reflect different publishing contexts and maturity levels. Standard Evaluation is not an easier or guaranteed route.
SIIFI Selective Evaluation Track
A rigorous track for journals demonstrating mature and consistent scholarly-publishing systems.
- Intended profile
- Established journals with reliable publication continuity, documented governance, integrity infrastructure and sustainable technical practice.
- Maturity expectation
- Mature and consistent publishing systems demonstrated through verifiable records.
- Evidence depth
- Extended review of governance, integrity, technical standards, citation reliability and sustainability.
- Citation context
- Reliable citation coverage is expected where appropriate to the discipline and publication model.
- Human review
- Detailed authorised evaluation with recorded evidence, limitations and methodology version.
- Possible outcomes
- Evaluated, deferred, not approved, suspended, withdrawn or archived.
- Limitations
- Track assignment and outcome depend on evidence; selection does not guarantee a public result.
SIIFI Standard Evaluation Track
An evidence-based track for legitimate developing, regional, institutional, multilingual, emerging and discipline-specific journals.
- Intended profile
- Regional, institutional, society, multilingual, new, developing, humanities, social-science and multidisciplinary journals with verifiable records.
- Maturity expectation
- A legitimate publishing record and minimum transparency appropriate to the journal context.
- Evidence depth
- Proportionate review of identity, transparency, publishing record and available evidence.
- Citation context
- Limited but verifiable citation coverage may be considered with clear limitations.
- Human review
- Context-aware authorised evaluation under the current methodology.
- Possible outcomes
- Evaluated, deferred, not approved, suspended, withdrawn or archived.
- Limitations
- Standard Evaluation is not an easier, inferior, guaranteed or paid-approval route.
Minimum eligibility is a starting point
Meeting minimum eligibility allows evidence review to proceed. It does not guarantee approval or a favourable result.
Journal identity
- Journal title
- Valid ISSN information
- Publisher identity
- Working HTTPS website
Editorial transparency
- Editorial board and editor information
- Peer-review process
- Author guidelines and publication schedule
Publishing integrity
- Ethics, authorship and conflict-of-interest policies
- Complaints, appeals, corrections and retractions
- Plagiarism and citation-manipulation policies
Technical record
- Published issues and article landing pages
- Article metadata and publication dates
- Licence and preservation information
Evaluation dimensions
Dimensions organise evidence into understandable areas. Weights or maximum scores appear only when publicly approved.
Journal Identity and Continuity
Verified identity, publication continuity and record consistency.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Identity records, ISSN information, publication history and material changes.
Limitation: Identity verification does not by itself indicate evaluation approval.
Editorial Governance
Clear editorial roles, accountability and decision structures.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Editorial board, editor information, governance statements and contact pathways.
Limitation: Published information may not prove how every editorial decision operates.
Peer-Review Transparency
Published review model, responsibilities and author guidance.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Peer-review policy, reviewer guidance, editorial workflow and correction mechanisms.
Limitation: Transparency evidence is assessed separately from individual article quality.
Publishing Integrity
Ethics, authorship, conflicts, complaints and corrections policies.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Published policies, notices, complaints routes and integrity controls.
Limitation: A policy statement does not prove perfect implementation.
Technical Publishing Standards
Reliable article pages, metadata, dates, access and preservation.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Website checks, article metadata, identifiers, archives and access records.
Limitation: Technical checks reflect the observed data period.
Citation Evidence
Traceable, matched and quality-controlled citation relationships.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Eligible records, source coverage, matches, exclusions, duplicates and self-citations.
Limitation: Coverage varies by field, language, publication type and data source.
Research Visibility
Discoverability and availability of the scholarly record.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Accessible records, metadata completeness and publication visibility.
Limitation: Visibility is not equivalent to research quality.
Accessibility and Inclusion
Usable access, language context and inclusive publishing practice.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Access pathways, language information and relevant accessibility evidence.
Limitation: Applicable evidence depends on journal context.
International, Regional or Disciplinary Contribution
Scholarly relevance interpreted within the journal context.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Aims, scope, contribution, audience and disciplinary or regional role.
Limitation: Different contexts are not treated as interchangeable.
Record Reliability and Continuing Compliance
Ongoing record reliability and response to material changes.
Evidence & limitation
Evidence: Updates, corrections, rechecks, status history and compliance evidence.
Limitation: A released result reflects a stated period and may later be superseded.
From citation discovery to an approved dataset
Records are matched, duplicates controlled, sources classified and material issues reviewed before release.
- 01Published Items
- 02Citation Discovery
- 03Identity Matching
- 04Duplicate Control
- 05Source Classification
- 06Self-Citation Review
- 07Human Validation
- 08Approved Dataset
Eligible publication types
Only publication types defined by the current methodology enter the approved dataset.
Identity matching
Citation records are matched to the intended journal and eligible publication.
Duplicate control
Duplicate citation records are identified before public metrics are prepared.
Self-citation review
Journal self-citations are identified and handled under the published methodology.
Retracted or invalid records
Materially invalid records may be excluded or flagged according to approved rules.
Missing and unmatched data
Missing or unmatched data are disclosed as limitations; they are not silently converted into zero.
Missing data is not zero.
Unmatched or unavailable records are identified as limitations, confidence notes or recheck requirements.
Metric construction framework
A result must remain traceable to its evidence
The authoritative calculation is server-side, versioned and released only after authorised review. This conceptual model explains the inputs; it is not a calculation formula.
- Methodology version and data period recorded
- Inputs, exclusions and corrections preserved
- Missing-data and rounding treatment disclosed
- Human approval required before public release
Verified journal evidence+Quality assessment+
Approved citation evidence+Context and integrity controls
SIIFI independent journal-level result
Know where evidence came from—and what happened to it
Source, verification method, evidence status, confidence and public release are recorded as separate facts.
Publisher supplied
Provided by the journal or publisher; verification remains separate.
Automatically collected
Captured by controlled technical processes and checked for errors.
Independently verified
Confirmed against accessible scholarly or publishing evidence.
Manually corrected
Changed after evidence review, with the correction recorded.
Not publicly available
Retained privately where disclosure is inappropriate or restricted.
Recheck required
Evidence may be outdated, incomplete or affected by a material change.
Research intelligence
AI-Assisted Analysis, Human-Controlled Decisions
AI may assist with metadata extraction, entity matching, citation relationship analysis, technical diagnostics, anomaly prioritisation and evidence organisation. AI output may contain errors and is never the final decision.
AI recommendations are not decisions
Material evidence receives human review
Result release requires authorised approval
Corrections enter the audit record
A status says what has—and has not—happened
Only an Evaluated status with a released result means a public journal-level result exists.
Application Received
The submission has been recorded.
What this status means
Completed: Application record created.
Not completed: Identity and eligibility checks are not complete.
Publisher action: Monitor the publisher dashboard and respond to evidence requests.
Identity Verification Pending
Core identity checks are in progress.
What this status means
Completed: Application received.
Not completed: Identity verification and evaluation are not complete.
Publisher action: Provide requested identity evidence.
Identity Verified
Core journal identity has been confirmed.
What this status means
Completed: Identity checks completed.
Not completed: Evaluation approval and result release have not occurred.
Publisher action: Complete eligibility or evaluation requirements.
Payment Pending
An eligible paid service is awaiting payment.
What this status means
Completed: Applicable pre-payment checks completed.
Not completed: Payment and evaluation are not complete.
Publisher action: Follow the secure payment instruction in the publisher dashboard.
Evaluation in Progress
Evidence is being analysed under the assigned track.
What this status means
Completed: Identity and applicable eligibility steps completed.
Not completed: Final decision has not been made.
Publisher action: Respond if additional evidence is requested.
Decision Pending
Review is awaiting authorised human decision.
What this status means
Completed: Evidence analysis prepared.
Not completed: No public result has been released.
Publisher action: No action unless contacted.
Evaluated
A human-approved public result is available.
What this status means
Completed: Decision and controlled public release completed.
Not completed: Continuing review may still apply.
Publisher action: Review the public profile and methodology record.
Evaluation Deferred
More evidence or time is required.
What this status means
Completed: Current evidence review recorded.
Not completed: A final approval has not been given.
Publisher action: Address the stated evidence gap.
Not Approved
Applicable requirements were not met.
What this status means
Completed: Human decision recorded.
Not completed: No favourable result exists.
Publisher action: Review the decision and available appeal route.
Suspended
A previously public record or result is temporarily restricted.
What this status means
Completed: Suspension decision recorded.
Not completed: Current validity is not confirmed.
Publisher action: Follow the notice on the public profile.
Withdrawn
The active process has ended without a current evaluation.
What this status means
Completed: Withdrawal recorded.
Not completed: No active evaluation result exists.
Publisher action: Contact SIIFI if a new application is required.
Archived
The record is retained for history and is not active.
What this status means
Completed: Historical record retained.
Not completed: The record is not a current evaluation.
Publisher action: Use the current journal record if one exists.
Editorial independence
Payment supports evaluation work—not an outcome
An evaluation fee may cover administrative review, evidence processing, technical checks, citation-data preparation and evaluation operations. Payment does not guarantee eligibility, approval, a favourable result, ranking, certificate, continued listing or renewal.
Free journal-record registrationIdentity record; not evaluation approval
Paid evaluation serviceEvidence and evaluation operations
Correction requestEvidence-based record review
Re-evaluationNew review under applicable rules
Responsible use
A journal-level result is one form of evidence
A journal-level result describes selected characteristics of a journal. It does not establish the quality of every article or the ability of an author, must not be the sole basis for hiring, promotion or funding, and does not replace expert assessment.
- Interpret within discipline, language and publication model
- Check data period, coverage, methodology and limitations
- Never replace expert assessment with one number
Records can be corrected without erasing history
Verified corrections, appeals and re-evaluations follow a documented, human-controlled workflow. An appeal does not guarantee a changed decision.
- 1Request
- 2Identity Validation
- 3Evidence Review
- 4Decision
- 5Public Correction Notice
- 6Audit Record
Methodology history remains public and traceable
Historical results stay connected to the methodology used to create them. Published methodology records are superseded, not overwritten.
| Version | Methodology | Effective date | Main change | Status | Public document |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No methodology version has been authorised for public release. | |||||
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers for publishers, editors, scholars and research administrators.
What does SIIFI evaluate?
SIIFI reviews journal identity, publishing practice, evidence quality, technical record and citation evidence under a published methodology.
Is journal registration the same as evaluation?
No. Registration creates a journal record. It does not mean approval, evaluation, ranking or a released result.
Does payment guarantee a result?
No. Payment never guarantees eligibility, approval, a favourable result, ranking, certificate or renewal.
Can a new journal apply?
Yes. A legitimate developing journal may apply, but its track and eligibility depend on available evidence.
How is an evaluation track assigned?
A publisher may suggest a track. SIIFI assigns it administratively after reviewing journal maturity and evidence context.
How long does evaluation take?
The period depends on evidence completeness, identity issues, citation coverage and the review queue. The publisher dashboard shows the current stage.
How are citations collected?
Citation records are discovered, identity-matched, deduplicated, classified and reviewed before inclusion in an approved dataset.
How are self-citations treated?
They are identified and handled according to the methodology version linked to the evaluation. Treatment is disclosed with the result.
What happens when citation data are incomplete?
Missing or unmatched data are labelled as limitations or recheck items. Missing data are not silently converted into zero.
Does AI determine the result?
No. AI may organise evidence or flag patterns, but authorised human evaluators make and release decisions.
Can a publisher appeal?
Yes. A documented appeal may request review of evidence or process, but it does not guarantee a changed decision.
How can a certificate be verified?
Use the certificate verification service and match its current status with the public journal record.
Begin with a verifiable record
Ready to submit a journal for evaluation?
Registration and payment do not guarantee approval or a released result. Every final decision remains evidence-led and human-authorised.
evaluation@siifi.org