Stage One Evaluation
Stage One evaluation focuses on verifying the journal’s foundational compliance with minimum scholarly publishing requirements. At this level, ALIF Index assesses whether the journal demonstrates a transparent digital presence, identifiable governance structure, clearly declared policies, and the basic technical readiness required to participate in the SEIPID ecosystem.
The purpose of this stage is to confirm the journal’s operational legitimacy and public accountability before advancing toward integrity-based indexing. This stage evaluates structural visibility rather than scholarly impact.
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 evaluation assesses the journal’s operational integrity and publishing consistency over time. At this level, ALIF Index examines whether the journal demonstrates sustained editorial activity, policy-driven governance, geographic diversity in authorship and editorial representation, and adherence to recognised ethical and publication standards.
This stage evaluates the journal’s functional maturity and readiness for integrity-based indexing by reviewing real publication practices rather than declared intent.
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 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.
In addition, not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total published articles within an issue or evaluation period 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.
• 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.
This review is not a detailed or in-depth peer review of individual articles at this stage, but rather a broad consistency check to ensure thematic alignment and academic relevance across published content.
Journals that successfully pass Stage Two are granted ALIF Index L1 status; those rejected at first attempt may reapply after making the required improvements. If rejected upon reapplication, the journal will be placed under an embargo period of 6–18 months before the next submission is permitted.
Stage Three Evaluation (L2 — Established)
Stage Three (L2) evaluates whether a journal has moved beyond basic compliance and operational readiness into sustained, mature publishing. At this level, ALIF Index reviews consistency over multiple years, verifies measurable citation engagement, and conducts controlled sampling of article quality and peer-review reporting to confirm real-world scholarly standards.
L2 assessment focuses on evidence-based performance and integrity signals: stable publication history, meaningful citation footprint, quality-controlled publishing outputs, and international participation across authorship and editorial governance.
- Active Publishing: At least 2–3 years of continuous publication
- Minimum Output: At least 40 articles OR 10–12 issues
- Regularity: No unexplained gaps greater than 6 months
- On-time Publication: Issues published according to the declared schedule
- J-Citation (Total Citations): > 100
- X-Impact (Lagged Impact Score): Threshold defined by ALIF per discipline
- ALIF Core Score (Rolling Performance): Threshold defined by ALIF per discipline
- ALIF Index (h-type): > 7
- ALIF Index² (10+ cited outputs): > 5
- ے-Index (100+ cited outputs): 0 (informational at L2; performance-weighted at L3)
- Random Sample: 2–5 articles randomly selected from previous years
- Methodological Rigor: Research design, data handling/analysis, and conclusions reviewed at a general level
- Originality: Plagiarism screening (iThenticate/Turnitin or equivalent); target < 15–20%
- Referencing Quality: References relevant, reasonably current, and correctly structured
- Language Quality: Professional language standard; copyediting evidence where applicable
- Peer Review Evidence: 1–3 original articles from the previous 2 years selected; reviewer reports requested for manual evaluation of feedback quality
- Author Diversity: At least 40% authors from outside the journal’s country
- Institutional Spread: Multiple institutions represented (avoid single-institution dominance)
- Editorial Board Diversity: At least 50% editors from outside the publisher’s country
- Editorial Expertise: Editors demonstrate publication record in relevant field(s)
- Self-citation Monitoring: Journal-level self-citation tracked; thresholds defined by ALIF per discipline
- Citation Manipulation Safeguards: Detection of abnormal cross-journal citation patterns
- Coercive Citation Prohibition: Explicit policy and complaint channel
- Annual Transparency Stats: Approx. submissions, acceptance rate bands, median review time, and publication counts
Journals that meet L2 criteria are classified as ALIF Index L2 (Established) and may become eligible to apply for L3 (Excellence) once sustained performance thresholds and long-window impact indicators are met.
Ready to Get Your Journal Evaluated?
Join the growing community of journals committed to integrity and recognition.