Acceptance into Web of Science Core Collection does not guarantee permanent indexing. This blog explains why journals are placed on hold, how journal re-evaluation and delisting decisions are made, and the role publishers can play in safeguarding research integrity.
As challenges to research integrity increase in scale and complexity, so does the need for vigilant quality control and transparent editorial standards.
Our in-house, publisher-independent editorial team proactively monitors and routinely re-evaluates indexed journals to ensure they continue to meet our 24 quality criteria. Since 2023, we have also used AI-supported tools to help decide which journals should be prioritized for re-evaluation.
Being placed “on hold” is part of the Web of Science Core Collection journal evaluation and re-evaluation process. It occurs when valid concerns emerge that indicate a journal may no longer meet our quality criteria, based on in-house monitoring, trusted public sources, or issues raised by the research community.
When a journal is placed on hold in Web of Science, stakeholders understandably want to know: – What does being placed on hold mean in practice? – Why are some journals re-indexed after being put on hold, while others are ultimately delisted? – What role can publishers play in determining the outcome?
What it means when a journal is placed on hold A hold is a neutral mechanism for review, not a final decision or a presumption of misconduct. It pauses the indexing of new content while a journal is re-evaluated, with the journal remaining visible in the Master Journal List, and clearly marked as “on hold”. This transparency informs the community that a review is underway, while also giving publishers an opportunity to engage with us constructively.
We only put a journal on hold when our initial review indicates that concerns are valid and require further investigation. Based on the outcomes of re-evaluations to date, around 85% of journals put on hold are ultimately delisted.
Why some journals are re-indexed after being put on hold, while others are delisted Following re-evaluation, journals that continue to meet the quality criteria remain indexed, the hold is removed, and any new content which has not been indexed is backfilled. Journals that no longer meet the criteria are delisted (removed from coverage). In some cases, involving the most serious breaches of editorial standards, historical indexed content may also be removed.
Publishers are informed of the outcome, and coverage changes are publicly visible through the monthly updates to the Master Journal List.
How long a journal typically remains on hold Timeframes for completing a re-evaluation vary by case. On average, most journals remain on hold for around six weeks. When publishers engage constructively and corrective action is underway, longer timeframes may be required before a final decision is reached.
The role publishers can play in determining the outcome Our standard policy states that any delisted journal is subject to a two-year embargo before it can be resubmitted for evaluation. In 2024, we introduced an additional policy that reflects our commitment to working with publishers to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy recognizes the growing challenge posed by fraudulent or low-quality content and the need for shared responsibility.
Where publishers proactively investigate breaches in research integrity and correct the scholarly record in a timely and transparent manner, we may consider continued coverage or a reduced embargo period for a delisted journal.
Our editorial team does not work in isolation. When a journal is placed on hold, we communicate directly with the publisher. Publishers who engage early and provide verifiable evidence of comprehensive investigations and corrective action are far more likely to see a positive outcome. Limited engagement or a lack of transparency makes it significantly harder to restore confidence that issues have been addressed.
Trusted journals, trusted research Our approach prioritizes providing the research community with trusted content. We evaluate journals holistically against our quality criteria, focusing on rigorous editorial standards and adherence to community norms – rather than taking a rigid ‘zero tolerance’ stance. This balanced approach supports journals genuinely committed to integrity, even amid challenges.
We expect publishers to proactively correct the scholarly record when unreliable content is identified, and to continue these efforts even after a hold is removed. Journals are not penalized for issuing retractions. In most cases where journals seek to have a hold removed or to be re-indexed following a delisting, retractions are a necessary demonstration of transparent and responsible correction of the scholarly record.
Looking ahead The scholarly publishing landscape continues to evolve, and with it, the challenges of scale, speed, and integrity. Our commitment at Clarivate is to continue strengthening the processes that help researchers, librarians, and funders make decisions with confidence by providing trustworthy data, reliable metrics, and analytics.
Holds and delistings are not designed to be punitive measures, but mechanisms to support a trustworthy scholarly record. When approached collaboratively, they can be catalysts for positive change.
For publishers, openness, responsiveness, and a willingness to engage constructively make a real difference. But safeguarding research integrity requires genuine collaboration across the entire research ecosystem.
Research institutions, librarians, funders, researchers, and technology partners all have a vital role to play in maintaining trust in the scholarly record. Initiatives like United2Act exemplify how collective action can drive positive change, bringing together diverse stakeholders to address research integrity issues at scale.
When we work together openly and constructively, we strengthen the integrity of the scholarly record and the trust on which the global research community depends. Learn more about the Web of Science editorial process.
