Editorial Evaluation Framework
The evaluation process for inclusion in the Alif Index Collection is conducted through a structured in-house framework administered by dedicated XRC evaluation units. Separate reviewer teams are assigned to each stage of the Alif Index process and are specifically trained to assess journals against the criteria relevant to that stage. Each evaluation unit comprises subject-area specialists who possess disciplinary knowledge aligned with the journals under review and are formally trained in evaluation protocols based on internationally recognised publishing standards and editorial best practices. In addition to subject familiarity, all reviewers undergo stage-specific training in how to conduct structured journal-level assessments in accordance with the Alif Index evaluation framework.
For article-level and peer review workflow sampling conducted at Stage 3 (L2), selected manuscripts and corresponding reviewer reports are evaluated by field-relevant experts. This subject-specific approach recognises that editorial conventions, methodological expectations, and peer review practices may differ across disciplines, and ensures that evaluations are conducted within an appropriate scholarly context.
All reviewer decisions are undertaken independently by XRC-assigned specialists who are not directly affiliated with applicant journals or their publishing entities, in order to minimise potential conflicts of interest and maintain consistency in evaluation outcomes.
The Alif Index applies a multi-stage editorial evaluation framework grounded in the principles of research integrity, transparent publishing practices, and progressive scholarly development. Journals are assessed across four evaluation stages using a total of thirty-two (32) criteria. Of these, twenty-nine (29) are journal-level quality criteria intended to evaluate editorial rigour, publishing transparency, and best-practice compliance. The remaining three criteria function as impact gateways at Stage 4 (L3), where eligible journals are ranked within their subject groups using the proprietary Alif Composite Score (ACS).
Index Entry Pathway
Journals that meet the Stage 1 criteria are admitted to the Alif Pre-Index and become eligible for participation within the SEIPID ecosystem. Whereas, journals that meet the combined Stage 1 and Stage 2 criteria are classified as Alif Index L1 Journals.
Journals that meet the Stage 3 criteria are classified as Alif Index L2 (Established) Journals. L2 journals may be further ranked within their subject groups as L2 Silver or L2 Tanzanite based on ACS performance.
Journals that satisfy all Stage 1–3 quality criteria and meet the Stage 4 impact gateways are eligible for classification as Alif Index L3 Journals, with tier placement (Gold, Red Beryl, Painite) determined through ACS-based ranking.
Periodic Re-evaluation & Collection Mobility
The Alif Index is a dynamic evaluation-based collection subject to periodic re-assessment to ensure that journals are appropriately classified according to their demonstrated publishing quality and citation performance over time. Journals included in the Alif Index are re-evaluated at regular intervals using the applicable stage-level quality criteria and ACS-based impact gateways. Movement across index levels (L1, L2, L3) is determined through sustained performance within discipline-normalised ACS bands, provided that all applicable quality requirements continue to be met.
Journals demonstrating consistent improvement in citation performance and editorial integrity may be considered for advancement to higher index levels during biennial evaluation cycles. Similarly, journals that exhibit sustained decline in impact performance across consecutive review cycles may be subject to reclassification to a lower index level. In all cases, quality compliance remains a precondition for impact-based classification. Journals that fail to meet the applicable quality criteria during periodic review may be downgraded, placed under integrity watch, or removed from the Alif Index where necessary in accordance with the Removal and Corrective Action Policy.
Newly admitted journals are evaluated initially for foundational and operational quality under Stage 1 and Stage 2 criteria. Advancement to higher classification tiers is contingent upon continued compliance with quality standards and demonstrated citation engagement under Stage 3 and Stage 4 evaluation pathways. Ranking position alone is not sufficient for advancement to a higher classification tier. Journals must continue to satisfy all applicable quality criteria in addition to meeting the ACS-based performance thresholds defined for that level.
Stage One Evaluation
Stage One evaluation focuses on verifying the journal’s foundational compliance with minimum scholarly publishing requirements. It consists of seventeen (17) evaluation criteria grouped into three core areas: Journal Identity & Metadata, Technical Integrity (Digital Presence & Website), and Document-Level Basics. This stage focuses on foundational publishing readiness by assessing the journal’s declared identity, digital presence, and document-level metadata to determine operational transparency and minimum scholarly publishing structure prior to impact-based evaluation.
At this level, ALIF Index assesses whether the journal demonstrates a transparent digital presence and the basic technical readiness required to participate in the SEIPID ecosystem.
The journal’s full official title must be clearly stated on the website and used consistently across all official platforms, including article PDFs and published materials. New journals must ensure the uniqueness of their title by verifying it through the ISSN Portal prior to finalisation.
In the event of a title change, the updated title and corresponding dates of change must be documented on the website with a clear explanatory note. Where the original title is presented in a language other than English, an English version must also be provided.
At the time of application, it is mandatory to provide the journal’s standard abbreviation (short title), preferably based on the initials or an internationally recognisable form of the full journal title.
The journal must provide its Print ISSN and/or Online ISSN, where applicable, and ensure that this information is clearly displayed on the website.
New journals may apply at Stage One without an ISSN for Alif Pre-Indexing; however, a valid ISSN will be required for Alif Index L1 validation prior to indexing.
The journal website must specify the journal’s publication format (e.g., online-only or hybrid) and access type (e.g., open access, subscription-based, or closed access).
In cases where content is restricted (e.g., subscription-based or closed access), the journal must provide evaluators with temporary or review access to published content at the time of application.
The journal website must clearly state whether any fees apply, including Article Processing Charges (APCs) or other publication-related costs. Where applicable, the amount, payment method, and refund policy should be transparently described on a publicly accessible page.
This information must be openly available on the website, and any changes to fee structures or related policies must be promptly updated and documented, with revisions clearly reflected to ensure transparency. Hidden or undisclosed charges are not permitted.
The journal website must list the Editorial Board, including full names, institutional affiliations, and official email addresses or verified academic profile links.
For new journals, the minimum requirement is the presence of an Editor-in-Chief and at least one additional editor with expertise aligned to the journal’s scope.
The journal website must clearly state its licensing model (e.g., CC BY, CC BY-NC) along with the applicable copyright policy, including whether copyright is retained by the author or transferred to the publisher upon publication.
The journal must operate under a unique and publicly accessible URL, with direct access to its published content clearly available through the website. It is strongly recommended that the journal be hosted on a dedicated domain or subdomain to ensure stability, identity, and long-term accessibility. The journal URL and method of accessing full-text articles must be clearly stated on the website.
The journal website should be user-friendly, mobile responsive, and logically structured to support ease of navigation and content discoverability. Information should be grouped under clearly defined navigation menus (e.g., policies, journal boards, guidelines, about, etc.), allowing users to intuitively locate relevant content.
It is recommended that grouped items within navigation menus be supported by dedicated standalone pages for each component (e.g., individual policy pages), ensuring clarity, traceability, and ease of reference.
The journal should publicly disclose its digital archiving and long-term content preservation strategy on its website. This includes clearly stating how published content is stored, backed up, and protected against data loss or platform failure.
It is recommended that the journal implement recognised digital preservation mechanisms (e.g., LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, PKP Preservation Network, or equivalent institutional repositories) to ensure permanent accessibility of scholarly content.
The journal must operate through a clearly identified online editorial management system that supports the full publication workflow. This may include platforms such as OJS (Open Journal Systems), WordPress-based journal management plugins, or a custom-built submission system. The platform should be:
Publicly accessible and easy to navigate
Equipped with secure user login for authors, reviewers, and editors
Capable of handling online manuscript submission and tracking
Support peer review workflow and revision management
Enable editorial decision-making and communication
Maintain submission history and decision records
The system should ensure transparency, traceability, and role-based access throughout the editorial and peer review process.
Each published article and issue must be hosted on a unique, permanent, and resolvable landing page within the journal website. This page must include essential metadata (e.g., article title, author names and affiliations, abstract, keywords, publication dates), a structured reference list, and access to the full-text PDF to ensure transparency, traceability, and long-term scholarly accessibility. If the article is published in a language other than English, the title, abstract, keywords must also be provided in English and cited names, references, and affiliations must be published in Roman script to allow rapid, accurate indexing, and easy comprehension by our global users. The article PDF should reflect the same information.
Each article must include the original title, abstract, and 3–7 keywords. If the article is published in a language other than English, the title, abstract, keywords, must also be provided in English and and cited names, references, and affiliations must be published in Roman script to allow rapid, accurate indexing, and easy comprehension by our global users. The article PDF should reflect the same information.
For titles, abstracts, and all other published text presented in English, the language must be clear and comprehensible to a global audience.
In addition, each article must clearly display the received, accepted, and published dates to ensure transparency in the editorial process and must include the author’s full name, affiliation, country, and a valid email or X-PEN ID or ORCID.
Journals that successfully meet Stage One requirements are admitted into ALIF Pre-Index, become eligible to obtain SEIPID plans, and may proceed to initiate their L1 evaluation application automatically. Journals that do not meet the criteria may reapply at any time after addressing the identified compliance gaps.
Stage Two Evaluation
Stage Two (Alif Index L1) consists of seven (7) evaluation criteria and assesses the journal’s operational integrity and publishing consistency over time. At this stage, the XRC reviewer team examines the alignment between the journal’s title, stated scope, editorial board composition, authorship profile, and its published content. ALIF also evaluates evidence of editorial rigour and adherence to recognised community standards in publication practices. Responsibility and accountability for the quality of all published material, including any special issue content, rests with both the publisher and the journal’s editorial board.
Journals that successfully meet the required criteria outlined across Stages One and Two are granted ALIF Index L1 status. Those rejected at the first attempt may reapply after implementing the necessary improvements. In the event of a second unsuccessful application, the journal will be placed under an embargo period of 6–18 months before a subsequent submission may be considered.
Issues must be released within a reasonable and declared timeframe in accordance with the journal’s stated publication frequency (e.g., quarterly, biannual, etc.). Journals showing irregular publication patterns, excessive delays, or unexplained gaps between issues may be considered non-compliant at this stage.
The editorial board must consist of at least five (5) members, including an Editor-in-Chief. All editorial members must be clearly listed on the journal website with their full names, institutional affiliations, academic roles, and (preferably) official or institutional email addresses.
The board must also demonstrate a reasonable level of geographic diversity, with members representing different institutions and, where possible, multiple countries or academic regions. Editorial appointments should reflect subject expertise relevant to the journal’s declared scope and disciplinary focus.
To ensure institutional and geographic diversity, at least ten percent (10%) of the authors published in the journal must be affiliated with institutions outside the journal’s country of publication. This requirement shall be assessed over the most recent evaluation window (e.g., latest issue(s) or the most recent volume published).
In addition, not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total published articles within the same evaluation window should be authored or co-authored by members of the editorial board. This measure is intended to reduce editorial authorship bias and promote external scholarly participation.
The journal should maintain transparency regarding its ethical expectations for authors, editors, reviewers, and published works. It must publicly demonstrate adherence to recognised academic publishing standards through clearly documented policies. It is recommended that each policy be presented on a separate webpage and grouped under a dedicated navigation dropdown section (e.g., “Policies”) to support clarity, accessibility, and ease of reference.
Where the journal adopts or follows the principles of third-party organisations (e.g., WAME, COPE, Declaration of Helsinki), the relevant guidelines should either be presented in full with appropriate attribution or made available through a functional link to the original source. The website should clearly present the following recommended policies, as applicable to the journal:
• A defined Peer Review Policy
• Description of the Peer Review Process and review timelines (step-by-step workflow)
• Plagiarism Detection Policy
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Corrections and Retractions Policy
• Editorial Independence and Integrity Policy
• Authorship Limits and Contribution Policy
• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy
• Data Availability Policy
• Language & Copyediting Policy
• Privacy Statement outlining how personal data of authors, reviewers, and readers is collected and protected
• Multiple/Concurrent Submission Policy prohibiting simultaneous submission to multiple journals
• Preprint Policy explaining whether preprints are permitted and how they should be cited
In addition, the journal must provide:
• Reviewer Selection Criteria and Responsibilities
• Appeals and Complaints Policy for editorial decision disputes
• Post-Publication Discussion Policy (e.g., Letters to the Editor or critiques)
• Permissions Policy for reuse, translation, or republication of journal content
• Archiving Policy describing long-term digital preservation arrangements (e.g., CLOCKSS, Portico, institutional repositories)
The journal must provide comprehensive Author Guidelines that clearly describe:
• Accepted manuscript types (e.g., original research, review articles, case studies, short communications, etc.)
• Formatting requirements, including article structure, word limits, citation and referencing style
• Section-specific submission requirements where applicable
• Submission workflow, including how manuscripts are submitted and what authors can expect during the review process
These guidelines must be publicly accessible on the journal website and written in a clear and professional manner.
Published content should reflect adherence to the policies declared by the journal, and all information presented on the website must remain accurate and up to date. Articles published by the journal are expected to align with its stated aims and scope. During L1 evaluation, ALIF may undertake a general content-level assessment of selected articles to examine their thematic relevance to the declared scope, methodological coherence, language clarity, and overall scholarly quality.
This assessment does not constitute a detailed or article-level peer review at this stage, but rather a broad consistency check to ensure alignment between published content and the journal’s stated focus. While the review is not intended to enforce ethical or plagiarism compliance directly, ALIF reserves the right to investigate any instances of questionable content or misleading claims where necessary.
The journal’s editorial policies should align with recognised scholarly community standards and best practices, including those promoted by organisations such as COPE or relevant national and international academic bodies. Published articles are expected to reflect accepted disciplinary conventions within their respective subject areas, including standardised terminology, nomenclature, and research reporting practices where applicable.
Stage Three Evaluation (L2 — Established)
Stage Three (L2) assesses whether a journal has moved beyond initial compliance into sustained and stable publishing. At this level, ALIF evaluates multi-year publication continuity, verifies discipline-normalised citation performance, and conducts controlled sampling of article quality and peer-review documentation to confirm real-world editorial rigour.
L2 evaluation focuses on evidence-based integrity and maturity signals: consistent publishing history, measurable citation engagement, quality-controlled editorial workflow, and meaningful international participation across authorship and editorial governance. Journals that meet the minimum L2 criteria are classified as ALIF Index L2 Journals. L2 Silver Journals and L2 Tanzanite are then determined through ACS-based ranking within the relevant subject group.
The journal should demonstrate sustained publishing activity, including at least three to five (3–5) years of continuous publication history and a minimum output of forty (40) articles or ten to twelve (10–12) complete issues.
Publication should occur in accordance with the journal’s declared schedule, with no unexplained gaps exceeding six (6) months between issues.
Minimum impact thresholds for L2 are discipline-normalised and assessed using: a two-year publication window with a maturity gap for X-Impact, a three-year rolling window for CoreScore, and cumulative measures for J-Score and the ALIF Index (h-type).
| Subject Group | X-Impact | CoreScore | J-Score | ALIF Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences (AHSS) | ≥ 0.10 | ≥ 0.90 | ≥ 50 | ≥ 3 |
| Natural Sciences (NS) | ≥ 0.16 | ≥ 1.30 | ≥ 80 | ≥ 4 |
| Pure Sciences (PS) | ≥ 0.18 | ≥ 1.50 | ≥ 100 | ≥ 4 |
| Applied Sciences & Engineering (ASE) | ≥ 0.21 | ≥ 1.70 | ≥ 120 | ≥ 5 |
| Medical & Health Sciences (MHS) | ≥ 0.26 | ≥ 2.10 | ≥ 160 | ≥ 6 |
| Agricultural & Life Sciences (ALS) | ≥ 0.22 | ≥ 1.90 | ≥ 130 | ≥ 5 |
X-Impact uses a two-year publication window with a maturity gap (e.g., 2021–2022 outputs assessed via 2025 citations). CoreScore is calculated as a three-year rolling citation ratio (e.g., 2023–2025). J-Score and ALIF Index (h) are cumulative up to the evaluation year.
As part of L2 evaluation, a small number of articles (e.g., 1–2) may be randomly selected from recent publication years to assess general quality and editorial consistency. Selected articles are reviewed at a high level to examine alignment with the journal’s stated scope, methodological clarity, originality, referencing practices, and overall language standard. This sampling is intended to evaluate whether published content reflects consistent scholarly standards rather than isolated outputs.
In addition, for selected articles published within the previous two years, the journal may be requested to provide corresponding peer review reports. These reports are assessed to examine the depth, relevance, and consistency of reviewer feedback in relation to the editorial decision-making process, ensuring that peer review is substantive and aligned with recognised academic publishing practices.
It is recommended that the journal retain all relevant editorial workflow records for selected manuscripts for a minimum period of two (2) years. This may include the original submission files, peer review reports (individual or consolidated), revised versions, editorial decision records, and final publication files. Such retention supports transparency, enables auditability of the peer review process, and ensures traceability of editorial decisions if required during evaluation or integrity review.
Within the most recent issue or latest published volume, minimum 25% of the authors should be affiliated with institutions outside the journal’s country of publication. In addition, authorship should reflect institutional diversity, with contributions originating from multiple institutions to avoid concentration from a single organisation.
The Editorial Board should also demonstrate geographic diversity, with at least fifty percent (50%) of its members affiliated with institutions outside the publisher’s country. Board members are expected to possess demonstrable scholarly expertise relevant to the journal’s scope, reflected through academic publications or research contributions in the field.
The journal must adhere to recognised scholarly community standards and demonstrate this through both documented policies and editorial practices. Under the Alif Index evaluation framework, citation behaviour is subject to system-based monitoring, including journal-level self-citation patterns (which should generally remain below 15%) and detection of abnormal citation activity, including cross-journal citation concentration.
Such practices are treated as serious integrity concerns. Where citation manipulation or misleading patterns are identified at any stage of evaluation or periodic review, the journal may be subject to immediate corrective action, including de-listing from the Alif Index. In cases of repeated or severe violations, the journal may be suspended, excluded, or removed from coverage, with status recorded in the Alif Index database.
Journals that do not meet L2 thresholds remain classified at ALIF Index L1, provided they continue to satisfy the L1 quality requirements. Where quality compliance deteriorates or integrity concerns are identified during periodic review, the journal may be downgraded, de-listed, or placed under corrective status as appropriate. Journals that fail L2 evaluation may reapply only after implementing the required improvements; repeated failure may result in an embargo period of 18–36 months before the next L2 submission is permitted. Advancement to L3 (Excellence) requires sustained performance over longer windows, stronger integrity signals, and ACS-based ranking thresholds as defined under the L3 framework.
Stage Four Evaluation (L3 — Impact & Excellence)
Stage Four (L3) is an ACS-anchored excellence and impact evaluation. At this level, ALIF assesses whether an L2 Tanzanite journal demonstrates long-window stability, internationally credible participation, and discipline-normalised citation strength. L3 is reserved for journals that have already satisfied Criteria 1–29 and have maintained clean integrity status during ALIF coverage.
L3 classification is determined through eligibility gates and ACS-based ranking within the relevant subject group. Journals that pass L3 entry gates are assessed for excellence placement, and the final L3 badge tier is assigned using the Alif Composite Score (ACS) on a 0–100 scale.
ACS Classification Bands (0–100)
- 96–100: Top 5% — L3 “Painite”
- 86–95: L3 “Red Beryl”
- 76–85: L3 “Gold”
- 60–75: L2 “Tanzanite”
- 45–59: L2 “Silver”
- <45: L1
The journal must already be classified as ALIF Index L2 — Tanzanite and must have completed a minimum of two (2) years of active indexed coverage under the ALIF Index following its L2 designation. During this indexed period, the journal should demonstrate consistent publication activity and continued adherence to the quality and governance requirements outlined under Criteria 1–29.
The journal must not be subject to any active integrity flags at the time of application. This includes unresolved allegations of editorial malpractice, publication misconduct, citation manipulation patterns, or verified instances of misleading publishing practices. Journals that have received two (2) consecutive ACS-based downgrades during periodic ALIF review cycles may be deemed ineligible for L3 consideration until performance stability is re-established.
In addition, the journal must demonstrate stable governance structures, including a clearly identifiable publisher, verifiable ownership and funding disclosures, and publicly documented signals of editorial independence. Responsibility for maintaining compliance with all previously assessed quality criteria (Items 1–29) rests with both the publisher and the editorial leadership of the journal.
- Minimum Age: At least 5–7 years of continuous publication
- Minimum Output: 150+ articles OR 25+ issues (verifiable in archive)
- Continuity: No unexplained gaps; issue publication follows declared frequency with documented exceptions only
To qualify for L3, the journal must achieve an ACS band that falls within the L3 range (Gold and above) in its assigned subject group. Final L3 badge tier is assigned strictly by ACS band: L3 Gold (entry), L3 Red Beryl, and L3 Painite (top).
Journals that pass the L3 entry gates and meet the ACS excellence threshold are classified as ALIF Index L3. The final L3 badge tier (Gold, Red Beryl, or Painite) is determined by the journal’s ACS band within its discipline-normalised ranking group.
Ready to Get Your Journal Evaluated?
Join the growing community of journals committed to integrity and recognition.