Enligt Chalmers *Chalmers bibliotek rekommenderar Scopus* därför att den är en av de stora, viktiga vetenskapliga artikeldatabaserna. Scopus kommer att användas alltmer på Chalmers för uppföljning av vetenskaplig publicering och forskningssamarbeten. Med citeringsindexet kan du identifiera vilka senare artiklar som citerat en specifik tidigare artikel, eller citerat artiklar av en viss författare, eller se vilka artiklar som blivit mest citerade. https://www.lib.chalmers.se/soek/databasinfo/Scopus/12296561 En åsikt som en författare i Retraction Watch inte delar https://retractionwatch.com/2024/07/17/scopus-is-broken-just-look-at-its-li… klipp As *Retraction Watch* recently reported <https://retractionwatch.com/2024/06/12/how-a-widely-used-ranking-system-ended-up-with-three-fake-journals-in-its-top-10-philosophy-list/>, three of the top 10 philosophy journals in the highly influential Scopus database turned out to be fakes: Not only did these dubious journals manage to infiltrate the list, but they also rose to its top by trading citations. This news is embarrassing in itself, but it is hardly shocking. Our rankings-obsessed academic culture has proven time and again that it is prone to data manipulation. Rankings for both publications and institutions are routinely hacked by scholars, editors, and administrators who are ready to tweak or even falsify numbers as needed. The problems with the Scopus journal rankings, however, run much deeper. The issue is not that inflated citation numbers have occasionally propelled impostor journals to the top of the list. Rather, at least in my own field of literary studies, the ranking makes no sense whatsoever: the list is full of journals that have no business being there at all because they belong to entirely different areas of scholarly enquiry, and even when the ranking gets the field right, it systematically places marginal publications close to the top. klipp The issue is not that inflated citation numbers have occasionally propelled impostor journals to the top of the list. Rather, at least in my own field of literary studies, the ranking makes no sense whatsoever: the list is full of journals that have no business being there at all because they belong to entirely different areas of scholarly enquiry, and even when the ranking gets the field right, it systematically places marginal publications close to the top. Kanske biblioteken ska vara lite mer kritiska och lite mindre naiva i synen på värdet av Scopus och i sina tvärsäkra rekommendationer Jan -- Jan Szczepański F.d Förste bibliotekarie och chef för f.d Avdelningen för humaniora, vid f.d. Centralbiblioteket, Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek E-post: Jan.Szczepanski63(a)gmail.com