Scopus CiteScore 2024 dips for the first time in a decade: Analysis of the top 1,000 journals

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.274

Keywords:

CiteScore, journal metrics, Scopus, citation analysis, scholarly publishing, bibliometrics

Abstract

Objective. This study sought to achieve three objectives. Initially, the study identified trends in the average CiteScore of the top 1,000 journals, with a particular emphasis on the recently published CiteScore 2024. It further analyzed the key drivers of the increase in the CiteScore over the last decade. It also identified the leading publishers that dominated the top 1,000 journals.

Design/Methodology/Approach. To identify trends in the average CiteScore of the top 1,000 journals over the period 2014–2024, a quantitative methodology was employed. One method calculated the average CiteScore based on the average of the 1,000 CiteScores for each of the 11 years. The second method involved calculating the average by aggregating the citations and documents for each of the 11 years and then dividing the citations by the documents. To gain insights into the rise of the CiteScore, a qualitative methodology involving expert interviews with 20 editors was also employed. To identify the leading publishers, the data for each of the 11 years were sorted on the field “Publisher.” The selection of journals for analysis was based on a minimum of 10% representation of the 1,000 journals.

Results/Discussion. The study revealed that the average CiteScore 2024 for the top 1,000 journals interrupted a decade-long established trend, with a decrease from an all-time high of 22.40 in 2023 to 22.00. The initial decline in the average CiteScore was attributed to an elevated incremental denominator (documents) in comparison to a reduced incremental numerator (citations). Over the past 11 years, this phenomenon has been observed for the first time. The documents increased by 4.36%, while the citations increased by only 2.50%. This resulted in a decline in the average CiteScore. A subsequent analysis identified four primary factors contributing to this increase: an increase in doctoral students, the “publish-or-perish” policy, technological support, and an increase in citation-based writing. A general consensus among experts suggested that prioritizing quality over quantity was essential for publishers to ensure sustainable growth.

Conclusions. Following a decade of consistent growth, which culminated in a peak the previous year, the average CiteScore for the top 1,000 journals declined in 2024. This marks the first decrease observed in 11 years. Elsevier and Springer Nature collectively represent 50% of the top 1,000 journals and exert a dominant influence within the publishing sector. As indicated by the findings, several factors have contributed to the observed increase in the average CiteScore. Editors have also proposed measures to sustain the growth in the CiteScore.

Originality/Value. This study is the first to examine the movements of the CiteScore for the top 1,000 journals over a substantial period, from 2014 to 2024. A key contribution of this analysis is the finding that, for the first time, the average CiteScore experienced a decline in 2024.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baker, D. W. (2020). Introducing CiteScore, our journal’s preferred citation index: moving beyond the impact factor. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 46(6), 309–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.03.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.03.005

Bast, H., & Weber, I. (2005). Don’t compare averages. In International workshop on experimental and efficient algorithms (pp. 67–76). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11427186_8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11427186_8

Cardoso, S., Santos, S., Diogo, S., Soares, D., & Carvalho, T. (2022). The transformation of doctoral education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education, 84(4), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5

Colledge, L., James, C., Azoulay, N., Meester, W., & Plume, A. (2017). CiteScore metrics are suitable to address different situations—A case study. European Science Editing, 43(2), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.20316/ese.2017.43.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2017.43.003

Croft, W. L., & Sack, J. R. (2022). Predicting the citation count and CiteScore of journals one year in advance. Journal of Informetrics, 16(4), Article 101349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101349 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101349

De Hoyos, M., & Barnes, S. (2012). “Analysing interview data.” Warwick Institute for Employment. Research, slides Vol. 37.

Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1319–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6

Eshchanov, B., Abduraimov, K., Ibragimova, M., & Eshchanov, R. (2021). Efficiency of “publish or perish” policy—Some considerations based on the Uzbekistan experience. Publications, 9(3), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9030033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9030033

Fang, H. (2021). Analysis of the new Scopus CiteScore. Scientometrics. 126(6), 5321–5331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03964-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03964-5

Fernandez-Llimos, F. (2018). Differences and similarities between Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. Pharmacy Practice (Granada), 16(2), 1282. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2018.02.1282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2018.02.1282

Gleasner, R. M., & Sood, A. (2025). Special issues: The roles of special issues in scholarly communication in a changing publishing landscape. Learned Publishing, 38(1), Article e1635. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1635 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1635

Khosravi, M. R., & Menon, V. G. (2019). CiteScore-based quartiles for scientometric analysis. TechRxiv preprint service (powered by IEEE). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f1f3/46ebb72750edcc53c91a6ccb37531b3173a1.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.11385939.v1

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

Kumar, A., Gawande, A., Kale, S., Agarwal, A., Brar, V., & Raibagkar, S. (2025a). Scopus weighted CiteScore: A better alternative to plain CiteScore. Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.170

Kumar, A., Gawande, A., Paliwal, J., Pendse, V., Kale, S., Agarwal, A., Brar, V., Palav, M., Nimbalkar, S., Saini, A., Rathi, G., & Raibagkar, S. (2025b). Barriers and need for dataset sharing in the publishing of research thesis. Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication, 5(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.192 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.192

Kumar, A., Paliwal, J. M., Brar, V., Singh, M., Patil, P. R. T., & Raibagkar, S. S. (2023). Previous year’s cite score strongly predicts the next year’s score: Ten years of evidence for the top 400 Scopus-indexed journals of 2021. Journal of Scientometric Research, 12(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.2.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.2.020

Meho, L. I. (2019). Using Scopus’s CiteScore for assessing the quality of computer science conferences. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.006

Okagbue, H. I., Bishop, S. A., Oguntunde, P. E., Adamu, P. I., Opanuga, A. A., & Akhmetshin, E. M. (2019). Modified CiteScore metric for reducing the effect of self-citations. Telkomnika (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control), 17(6), 3044–3049. https://doi.org/10.12928/telkomnika.v17i6.12292 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12928/telkomnika.v17i6.12292

Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481

Safdar, M., Siddique, N., Ur Rehman, S., Khan, S. Q., Khan, M. A., & Mahmood, K. (2025). Correlation between CiteScore and impact factor: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2024-0362 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2024-0362

Sane, A., & Sharma, S. (2025). Struggling to control research quality, India reverses the “publish or perish” policy and decentralizes quality control. Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication, 5(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.224 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.224

Sarrico, C. S. (2022). The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. Higher Education, 84(6), 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1

Savage, S. (2002). The flaw of averages. Harvard Business Review, 80(11), 20–21.

Scopus. (2025). Sources. Scopus preview. https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri

Shin, J. C., Kehm, B. M., & Jones, G. A. (2018). The increasing importance, growth, and evolution of doctoral education. In Doctoral education for the knowledge society: Convergence or divergence in national approaches? (pp. 1–10). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89713-4_1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89713-4_1

Stockemer, D., & Reidy, T. (2024). Introduction: Pandemic and post-pandemic publication patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 57(3), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523001051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523001051

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). CiteScore: Advances, evolution, applications, and limitations. Publishing Research Quarterly, 36(3), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09736-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09736-y

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). CiteScore: Risk of copy-cat, fake and misleading metrics. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1859–1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03791-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03791-0

Van Dalen, H. P. (2021). How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1675–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03786-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03786-x

Warpade, S., Kumar, A., Ingle, A., Pendse, V., Paliwal, J., Singh, M., Gade, R., Pathade, V., & Raibagkar, S. (2024). Indian women in doctoral education: Some encouraging signs, the path ahead, and lessons for inclusivity. Space and Culture, India, 12(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v12i1.1433 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v12i1.1433

Downloads

Published

2025-10-22

How to Cite

Kumar, A., Kalkar, P., Gawande, A., Brar, V., & Raibagkar, S. (2025). Scopus CiteScore 2024 dips for the first time in a decade: Analysis of the top 1,000 journals. Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.274

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026)

Section

Original article

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Atul Kumar, Parag Kalkar, Amol Gawande, Vinaydeep Brar, Shirish Raibagkar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0, which permits copying and redistributing the material in any medium or format, adapting, transforming, and building upon the material as long as the license terms are followed.