Main Article Content


This editorial details the procedure that the Editorial Team of Millah: Journal of Religious Studies followed to prepare for Scopus indexing. The quality of the journal has been improved by taking a number of actions, with the ultimate goal of bringing it into compliance with Scopus's defined minimal requirements. The Editorial Team has worked tirelessly to improve the Quality of Content, uphold the principles of the Peer Review Process, encourage a significant number of professionals to join the Editorial Board, and enforce Metadata Standards. Undoubtedly, these initiatives were meticulously carried out over a period of time, and they were not without obstacles. In addition, a large number of stakeholders, both internal and external to the faculty and the institution, were involved as partners in the implementation of these initiatives.


Accreditation Open Journal System Reaccreditation Science and Technology Index Scopus

Article Details

How to Cite
Andriansyah, Y. (2023). A Journey to Inclusion in Scopus: Lessons Learned from Millah: Journal of Religious Studies. Millah: Journal of Religious Studies, 22(2), xi-xxvi.


  1. Alexander, D., Gaillard, J., Kelman, I., Marincioni, F., Penning-Rowsell, E., van Niekerk, D., & Vinnell, L. J. (2021). Academic publishing in disaster risk reduction: Past, present, and future. Disasters, 45(1), 5–18.

  2. Binfield, P., Rolnik, Z., Brown, C., & Cole, K. (2008). Academic journal publishing. The Serials Librarian, 54(1–2), 141–153.

  3. Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2014). ‘English is my default academic language’: Voices from LSP scholars publishing in a multilingual journal. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 65–77.

  4. Grydehøj, A., Su, P., Huang, S., & Nadarajah, Y. (2023). Tensions and challenges in the decolonisation of academic publishing: A cross-tabulation analysis of articles in Island Studies Journal. Learned Publishing, 36(1), 4–13.

  5. Hladchenko, M. (n.d.). Effects of doctoral publication requirements on the research output of Ukrainian academics in Scopus. Higher Education Quarterly, n/a(n/a).

  6. Inouye, K., & Mills, D. (2021). Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the “predatory publishing” discourse. Learned Publishing, 34(3), 396–406.

  7. Kovács, G., Spens, K. M., & Vellenga, D. B. (2008). Academic publishing in the Nordic countries – a survey of logistics and supply chain related journal rankings. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 11(4), 313–329.

  8. Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102271.

  9. Lillis, T., Magyar, A., & Robinson‐Pant, A. (2010). An international journal’s attempts to address inequalities in academic publishing: Developing a writing for publication programme. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(6), 781–800.

  10. Liu, Y. (2012). Strategies for developing Chinese university journals through a comparison to western academic journal publishing. Serials Review, 38(2), 76–79.

  11. Lundin, R. A., Jönsson, S., Kreiner, K., & Tienari, J. (2010). The changing face of academic publishing: On the past, present and future of the Scandinavian Journal of Management. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(3), 309–317.

  12. Moed, H. F., de Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Lopez-Illescas, C. (2020). Are nationally oriented journals indexed in Scopus becoming more international? The effect of publication language and access modality. Journal of Informetrics, 14(2), 101011.

  13. Moed, H. F., Lopez-Illescas, C., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & de Moya-Anegon, F. (2022). Journals in Beall’s list perform as a group less well than other open access journals indexed in Scopus but reveal large differences among publishers. Learned Publishing, 35(2), 130–139.

  14. Polonsky, M., Mittelstaedt, J., & Moore, J. (2006). Publishing in marketing journals by Sustralia and New Zealand academics 1999-2003: An examination of institutional performance. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 14(1), 23–38.

  15. Rupp, M., Walter, N., Giannoudis, P. V., & Alt, V. (2022). Academic publishing and predatory journals—A tension between dissemination of scientific knowledge and the academic performance pressure. Injury, 53(11), 3567–3568.

  16. Schüklenk, U. (2011). Publishing bioethics and bioethics – reflections on academic publishing by a journal editor. Bioethics, 25(2), 57–61.

  17. Shao, X. (2007). Perceptions of open access publishing among academic journal editors in China. Serials Review, 33(2), 114–121.

  18. Siler, K. (2020). Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1386–1401.

  19. Smith, J. W. T. (1999). The deconstructed journal—A new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing, 12(2), 79–91.

  20. Striphas, T. (2010). Acknowledged goods: Cultural studies and the politics of academic journal publishing. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 7(1), 3–25.

  21. Sukirman, null, & Kabilan, M. K. (2023). Indonesian researchers’ scholarly publishing: An activity theory perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(8), 2030–2047.

  22. Van Nuland, S. E., & Rogers, K. A. (2017). Academic nightmares: Predatory publishing. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(4), 392–394.

  23. Wasserman, H., & Richards, I. (2015). On the factory floor of the knowledge production plant: Editors’ perspectives on publishing in academic journals. Critical Arts, 29(6), 725–745.

  24. Zhu, H. (2021). Home country bias in academic publishing: A case study of the New England Journal of Medicine. Learned Publishing, 34(4), 578–584.