how to download research papers from scopus

Scopus Help Guide

Table of Contents

Database information: scopus, searching scopus.

• Accessing Full Text
• Exporting Results from Scopus

Saving Results/Personal Account in Scopus

Auto alerts in scopus, scopus tutorials.

Scopus and Manifold

Scopus is an extensive abstract and citation database that provides comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed journals, books, conference abstracts, and patents across the natural sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. Using Scopus, you can:

Create customized searches for peer-reviewed literature across many disciplines

• View citations to journal articles
• Access the full text of documents provided by subscriptions through the University Libraries
• View profiles for authors indexed by Scopus, which include measures of scholarly impact like h-index and publication counts

This wealth of available data makes Scopus useful for searching for literature that can help you with your research and determining the impact of scholarly works. 

Searching in Scopus

You can search Scopus for documents, authors, and affiliations, as well as create advanced searches customized to your needs.

Searching for documents On the Scopus home page, you can search for documents based on search terms provided in article titles, keywords, publication names, and many other facets. To begin, enter your search terms in the field provided and use the dropdown box to specify which fields to search.   

You can repeat this process to include additional search terms in different fields. You also have the option to specify date range, document type, and subject areas for the returned results. When you complete your search, the results are presented in a list as shown below.

From this view, you can sort results, refine the results, export and download records, and access complete records for publications. Clicking on a result title opens the full Scopus record for the publication. To access the full text of a record, you can click the Full Text Options to get to the Find It or View at Publisher buttons.

Searching for authors To search for authors, click the Author search tab above the search box. 

Here you can search for authors and documents they have published based on name, keyword, and even ORCID . 

You can also narrow your search by exact matches only or by limiting results to specified subject areas. Each author returned in the results list links to a page that profiles their publications and citations as well as provides measures of their scholarly impact.

Searching for affiliations To search for affiliations (i.e., institutions), click the Affiliation search tab above the search box. 

Here, you can search by institution name, such as University of Minnesota.

Results from this search link to affiliation profiles that provide access to documents and authors associated with the respective institution. In addition, these profiles provide some statistics of an affiliation’s scholarly output, including documents by subject area, documents by publication source, and collaborating institutions.

Creating advanced searches Scopus provides the option of creating advanced searches to customize the results that are returned. To do this, click the Advanced search tab above the search box. 

In this page, you are provided a text box where you can specify all the parameters of your search using the field codes listed.

Getting full text

When using Library resources, the FindIt link is your connection to accessing the full text of articles if a PDF link is not already visible.

This short video will show you how to get to the articles you need for your research paper or other University of Minnesota assignments. Never pay for articles! If we don't have it online, request it and we will get it for you. 

Exporting Results From Scopus

Scopus allows you to export results lists (including all search results, ‘My Lists’ and ‘Saved Lists’), documents and documents references. These can be exported either to a file or a reference management tool (e.g. EndNote, Zotero).

• Select the document or documents you would like to export .
• Click the ‘ Export ’ link. A list of file or reference management tools will appear. 
• If this is the first time you are exporting , select your reference management tool or file type.
• Once you choose your file type or reference management tool, an export options box will appear.  Choose what citation information you want to export.  You can also save this template as a preference. Then click Export.
• Your export begins.

Personal account

You can create an Elsevier account for free.   With an Elsevier account you can save a search from any documents results list, or from within your current search history.

• Run a document search or an advanced search . A document search results page opens.
• From your document search results, click ‘ Save search’ which appears to the left of your search results. The "Save this search" popup opens.
• From within the Save this search popup, enter a name for the new Saved search .
• Click ‘ Save ’. Your search is saved and can be accessed by clicking on the Saved Searches link located above the Search History.

If you are not signed into Scopus, you have the option to add selected documents from your results list to a temporary session-based list.   When you sign out of Scopus, the documents in your temporary list are deleted.  If you are signed into Scopus, you have the option to save documents to a list which may be accessed anytime you are signed into Scopus.  You can rename, edit, delete, add documents to, or export your lists of documents in Scopus account. These lists are available any time when you sign in to Scopus and can be modified or exported according to your research needs.

You can setup and manage alerts in Scopus

• From the Set search alert page or Set Alert pop-up, enter a ‘Name of alert’ .
• In ‘ E-mail address’ , enter the email address for alert notifications. This field automatically displays the email address entered when you first registered to use Scopus. You can also enter email addresses of colleagues. Separate multiple email addresses with a semicolon, comma, or space, or press ‘ Enter’ on your keyboard. If a colleague unsubscribes from the alert, you will receive an email informing you of the action.
• From ‘ Frequency’ , select how often you want to receive alert email notices. For weekly alerts you can choose which day of the week you receive the alert, and for monthly alerts you can choose which day you receive the alert. Note: If there are no new documents matching your alert criteria during the time-frame or frequency you choose, you will not receive an alert.
• Click on "set search alert" to save the alert.
• Once you have created your Alert, it can be accessed on the Alert page.  On that page you can select ‘ Active’ or ‘ Inactive’ as the status of your alert. You can change this setting on the Alerts page without losing your frequency preferences. Setting an alert to ‘ Inactive’ status does not delete the alert.

Scopus Tutorials : Scopus tutorials provide a visual tour of Scopus and its functions, but are without sound. The tutorials below are also found in the relevant FAQs in the Scopus Support Center.

Scopus Tutorial: How to conduct a basic search (2022 July 12): 3:10 min

Scopus Tutorial: How to use advanced search (2022 July 13): 3:04 min.

Scopus Tutorial: How to Expand Your Search (2022 July 13): 2:32 min.

Scopus Tutorial: How to Create Citation Overview (2022 July 22): 2:48 min

Scopus Tutorial: Understand how author profiles work (2022 July 21): 2:14 min.

Scopus Tutorial: How to save searches and set alerts (2022 July 13): 2:13 min.

Scopus is useful for learning and research. Beyond serving as simply a citation index, however, it is also useful for assessing scholarly impact. As a result, data from Scopus form the foundation for Manifold , one of the University's research impact tracking systems.

What is Manifold? Manifold is a web-accessible interface that generates profiles and reports of research impact and scholarly output for faculty and departments in the University of Minnesota Medical School. Built in response to emerging expectations and needs around faculty scholarship, Manifold harvests publication data from Scopus, including citation counts, to provide metrics of research impact and productivity for Medical School faculty and departments. In addition, Manifold provides an easy mechanism for identifying nominees for the Wall of Scholarship , which showcases research excellence among Medical School faculty. As more needs around assessment emerge at the University, the system continues to be enhanced to meet new demands on the data that Scopus provides on faculty scholarship.

For more information about Manifold, please consult the Manifold Frequently Asked Questions page.

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

Scopus Search

Scopus quickly delivers the information you're looking for from over 92m records. Updated daily, Scopus features state-of-the-art search tools and filters to empower research efficiency.

Increase research efficiency

Having access to comprehensive content and high-quality data is only effective if you can easily find the information you need. Uncovering trends, discovering sources and potential collaborators, and building deeper insights require effective search tools that can identify the right results.

Identify trends for key topics

Scopus’ literature search is built to distill massive amounts of information down to the most relevant documents and information in less time.

With Scopus you can search and filter results in the following ways:

Document search : Search directly from the homepage and use detailed search options to ensure you find the document(s) you want

Author search : Search for a specific author by name or by Open Research and Contributor Identifier ID (ORCID)

Affiliation search : Identify and assess an affiliation’s scholarly output, collaborating institutions and top authors

Advanced search : Narrow the scope of your search using field codes, proximity operators and/or Boolean operators

Refine results : Scopus makes it easy to refine your results list to specific categories of documents

Language interface : The Scopus interface is available in Chinese and Japanese; content is not localized, but you can switch the interface to one of these language options (and switch back to English, the default language) at the bottom of any Scopus page

Quick reference guide

Learn how to easily start your search from the homepage and use all the features in Scopus with this handy Quick Reference Guide.

Download the guide opens in new tab/window .

Learn how Scopus can help your organization achieve its goals.

Related links

Scopus Document Download Manager

236 ratings

Scopus authenticated users can download PDF files directly from Scopus!

This extension only works for Scopus authenticated users. The Scopus download manager will not do anything for unauthenticated users. Scopus Document Download Manager is a free browser extension enabling download functionality in Scopus, as well as a Quick Document Search function for Scopus authenticated users. To search, authenticated users can simply click on the browser extension icon to display the search form. This extension saves authenticated users the hassle of visiting individual publisher web sites to download documents one by one. Instead, it seamlessly connects to publisher websites to download full text PDFs directly from your browser without needing to configure and maintain a list of entitlements. How do you use this extension in Scopus? 1) From the document search results or document list pages, select one or several documents and click on Download button or 2) From a Scopus abstract record page, click on Download button When successfully downloaded, your PDF document(s) will be saved to your browser Downloads folder. In the event that the extension fails at retrieving the PDF (e.g. you are not entitled to the full text or the download is prevented by the publisher web site) the Document Download Manager will provide a link to the publisher web site so you can easily open the page and try to download the full text manually.

1.9 out of 5 236 ratings Google doesn't verify reviews. Learn more about results and reviews.

Paul Bogere Apr 12, 2024

Fake, it doesn't work at all

Nishanth P Apr 5, 2024

Useless. Doesn't work.

Tuan Apollo Mar 26, 2024

Bad plugin and make download worser

• Version 4.00
• Updated June 22, 2024
• Report a concern
• Size 380KiB
• Languages English (United States)
• Developer Website Email [email protected]
• Non-trader This developer has not identified itself as a trader. For consumers in the European Union, please note that consumer rights do not apply to contracts between you and this developer.

This developer declares that your data is

• Not being sold to third parties, outside of the approved use cases
• Not being used or transferred for purposes that are unrelated to the item's core functionality
• Not being used or transferred to determine creditworthiness or for lending purposes

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, visit the developer's support site

Science Research Assistant

Search for scientific information as quickly as possible while researching and writing scientific papers.

SciSpace: Do hours of research in minutes

Your AI research assistant for understanding scientific literature.

ExCITATION journal ranking in Google Scholar™

Find quality sources in a shorter time (journal ranking), identify leading studies (sort by citation), and preview abstracts

Writefull for Overleaf

Writefull is automated proofreading for academic writing. This version of Writefull provides support for Overleaf.

Mendeley Web Importer

Fast, convenient import of references and PDFs to your Mendeley Reference Manager library.

This extension lets you save articles to MyLOFT

Google Scholar Button

Lookup scholarly articles as you browse the web.

Zotero Connector

Save references to Zotero from your web browser

Rapid Journal Quality Check

Displays rankings and h-index for academic journals next to Google Scholar search results.

Google Scholar PDF Reader

Supercharge your paper reading: follow references, skim outline, jump to figures, cite and save.

Knovel Browser Extension

Trusted results from wherever you are on the web, from Knovel, an Elsevier product

EndNote Click

Fast, one-click access to millions of research papers.

• All Solutions

Expertly curated abstract & citation database

About Scopus

Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. Delivering a comprehensive overview of the world's research output in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track, analyse and visualise research.

As research becomes increasingly global, interdisciplinary and collaborative, you can make sure that critical research from around the world is not missed when you choose Scopus.

“Speed is very important … I can easily identify what I need to know, read it, digest it and move on to the next one.” James, Research Pathologist, Medical Device R&D, Scopus user

“Scopus is very customer-friendly… You get more information from all different fields. It saves a lot of time.” Chris, Head of R&D, Diagnostic Testing, Scopus user

“Scopus informs every phase of the editorial process. I would not want to do this job without it, and I intend to continue using it throughout my career.” William, Professor of Economics, University of Tennessee

More information (in English)

• Why I would not want to be without Scopus; an editor’s story
• NASI Scopus Young Scientists Awards 2019

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.

• UNC Libraries
• HSL Academic Process
• Searching Scopus
• Using Scopus

Searching Scopus: Using Scopus

Created by health science librarians.

About Scopus

Basic search, advanced search, author name search, citation searching, creating alerts, exporting items to citation managers, analyzing results, create bibliography.

• Comparison between Scopus and Web of Science
• Journal Metrics
• Helpful Resources and Tutorials

Scopus is an abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature and web sources with tools to track, analyze, and visualize research. Scopus provides access to a broad portfolio of peer-reviewed content from around the world. 

Scopus includes the records from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, among other included sources. Scopus uses four broad subject areas:  Physical Sciences , Health Sciences , Social Sciences, and Life Sciences . 

Scopus allows users to:

• Search for articles, conference proceedings,trade publications, and book chapters on a topic
• Find author information, such as H-index, and lists of publications
• Locate Impact metrics for a journal title using SNIP, SJR, and CiteScore
• Perform citation searches on known articles
• Identify promising journals in which to publish
• Match an organization with its research output
• Locate potential collaborators or subject experts
• Manage your impact with your ORCID ID
• Set Citation Alerts

Search Form

Below is the Scopus search screen. Enter your first search term into the search field. If you have more than one concept to your search, select "Add Search Field" to add additional search fields, or conduct separate searches and combine them later using the "Search" button. 

Scopus does NOT have MeSH terms  or other subject headings on which to search. 

Scopus defaults to searching an article's Title, Abstract and Keywords.  You can change this in Advanced (see the tab to the left for information on Advanced searching).

Adapted from Rush University Library's  "Scopus User Guide"

On the Advanced search form, you can create a search using field codes, proximity operators, or boolean operators to narrow the scope of the search.

To create an advanced search, Click "Advanced Search" from the main search page

To search for keywords in an article's title or abstract, type in  TITLE-ABS before your search terms.  Be sure to use parentheses!  For example, this is correct:  (TITLE-ABS( children OR pediatrics))   but this is not correct:  TITLE-ABS children OR pediatrics

When doing a Boolean search, Scopus insists that parentheses be used correctly.  If you get a message about a Syntax Error, check your (( )).

Scopus needs Boolean operators (AND, OR) to be capitalized.  To exclude in Scopus, you must use AND NOT (not just 'NOT').

Scopus is a great place to look for information about a particular author's published works.    You can start your search for information on Scopus's main search page by clicking "Authors."  While Scopus is a compilation of peer-reviewed articles, it is not comprehensive, so keep in mind that you will only see information about the articles that have been indexed into Scopus.

Type in the author's last name, and first name if it will be helpful to locate them.  It is often a good idea to put an Affiliation as well.

The author's information will appear.  To see all their published work that has been indexed into Scopus, click the box in front of their name and then click "Show documents."

If you are checking on your own citations and notice that you have more than one listing, click "Request to merge authors."

If this is your information and there are multiple BOXES for your name, you can merge them by clicking the "Request to merge authors" link and following the steps.

For a visual representation of this author's work, click the box for All, then "View citation information."

• Scopus Advanced Search Video Tutorial

To find citation counts in Scopus

• Go to the  Scopus database
• Search by the document's title
• In the results list, look in the far-right hand column for the citation count.
• To see what documents cited the document, click on the citation count.

By registering as a Scopus user, you are able to create search, document, and author alert s to stay up-to-date at your desired frequency. Use these alerts to receive email notices when new documents are loaded on Scopus. From the Alerts page, you can create alerts, view the latest results for an alert, edit alerts, and delete alerts. There is no limit on the number of alerts you can create.

A Search alert is a saved search that you can schedule to run at certain intervals. If any new results are found, you will receive an email with the first 25 results and a link into Scopus to access all new results. You must be logged in to set an alert or work with your saved alerts.

To set a new search alert:

• From the  D ocument Search page, perform a new search. The Search results page opens.
• From the search results page, click  Set alert . The Set Alert pop-up appears.
• Set the frequency and day of week to start alerts.

To set an author alert:

• From the Author page, perform a new search. The Search results page opens.
• From the search results page, click an author's name. The author details page opens.
• From the author details page, click  Get citation alerts . The Set Alert Author Citation Alert pop-up opens.

To set a document alert:

• From the Document search page, perform a new search. The Search results page opens.
• From the search results page, click an document's name. The Document details page opens.
• From the Document details page, click  Set citation alerts . The Set Document Citation Alert pop-up opens.

To export items to SciWheel, EndNote, Zotero, or another citation manager, look in the grey bar (found at the top of your search results) for the words "RIS Export."   Note that you can also email citations (with links) to yourself in this bar.

You can export or email individual citations using the links in this bar, or you can save citations into a List and export/email the entire list at once by using the List function.  See "Saving Items in a List" in the tabs to the left for more information. 

The drop-down arrow next to "RIS Export" provides options for what information you'd like to export.  We recommend checking of all boxes so that all information is sent.

>Analyze Search Results

Scopus offers several built-in functions for analyzing search results.  You can find these options here:

The analysis tools provide a summary view of aspects of the search results, such as counts of publications:

• By document source (ex. Journal Title)
• By affiliation (author organization)
• By document type (ie. journal article, book chapter, etc.)
• And several other criterion

With Scopus, you can create a bibliography of articles on the fly. 

1. Select the articles in your search set that you would like to include in your bibliography. You can do this by checking off the boxes of the articles you want, or by using the "add to list" feature to just add those articles you want. When you add the articles to the list, your list will open. From there, select all. 

2.  Click on the three dots at the top right that indicate "more menu options".  Select the option "Create Bibliography".

3. Select which format you want (HTML or text) and select the appropriate citation style. Click on "Create Bibliography".

• Next: Comparison between Scopus and Web of Science >>
• Last Updated: May 14, 2024 12:50 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/scopus

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How can I put my publications into Scopus?

I've got many papers which are not on Scopus, but are picked up by Google Scholar. How do I include all those other papers into Scopus?

2 Answers 2

Scopus uses its own sources for publications in the form of publisher provided content. Their selection procedure is explained here: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection

There is no procedure to add individual documents to Scopus that I could find on their help pages. You should also be aware that it can take several weeks for a published paper to end up in Scopus. Some publishers (smaller publishers typically or new open-access publishers), conferences, technical reports might never make it to Scopus though.

On a related note, the citation count will probably lag behind Google Scholar.

• 7 "Some publishers (smaller publishers typically or new open-access publishers) ... never make it to Scopus though." That isn't a correct impression. It's not just smaller publishers or new OA publishers who's journals do not get selected for indexing in Scopus. Hundreds of Elsevier (a large publisher) journals are not even indexed in Scopus, and Scopus is owned and run by Elsevier(RELX Group)! Choice of what gets indexed in Scopus is quite arbitrary. Some say it is a 'quality' filter, but in my opinion the binary of IN or OUT is very harsh on some journals which are left 'OUT' of Scopus. –  rmounce Commented Sep 26, 2018 at 11:17

It sounds like you don't understand what Scopus is. Scopus is a database of quality-curated journals and the articles published in those journals. It isn't meant to be comprehensive, and because it's quality-curated, it doesn't mean that all your papers will automatically end up in the database. Comparatively Google Scholar goes for comprehensiveness. It doesn't have a quality bar, and it'll index literally everything and anything. You should be able to find all your papers in Google Scholar, but not in Scopus.

To get your publications into Scopus, publish in a journal that's indexed by Scopus. It's as simple as that. If you've already published elsewhere, it's too late (unless the journal becomes indexed by Scopus).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged scopus ..

• Featured on Meta
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...

Hot Network Questions

• How to relocate an outlet forward into a new wall?
• An adjective for something peaceful but sad?
• Areas with anti-parallel gravity in classical physics
• Of "ils" and "elles", which pronoun is, grammatically speaking, used to refer to a group with an overwhelming female majority?
• Create edges for a set of vertices with Geometry Nodes
• Story about Jesus being kidnapped by the church
• Is "double-lowercase-L" a ligature (Computer Modern Italic)?
• Positive sum can always be presented as a sum with strictly positive incremental sub-sums
• how to round numbers after comma everytime up
• Naming tikz pics doesn't work on v.3.1.10
• Questions about writing a Linear Algebra textbook, with Earth Science applications
• Mechanism behind a pink human skeleton
• A Ring of Cubes
• Using `Scaled` in an `Epilog` to `Plot`
• Are Artificers subject to the same magic item restrictions as other characters in AL?
• Can a MicroSD card help speed up my Mini PC?
• Arms, hands and posture at the piano
• Why do cubic equations always have at least one real root, and why was it needed to introduce complex numbers?
• C++ Conversion Error when Accessing Bits to Set a Bit Field
• What does this “Imo” sign mean?
• Can a star be made of sun spots?
• Given a special name
• My result is accepted in a journal as an errata, but the editors want to change the authorship
• Vilna Gaon - Torah can bring you up or bring you down

tree-logo-small-v2.png

• Research trends reports
• Tips & Tricks

You are here

Search this blog, get our newsletter.

Follow Scopus

• Content (59)
• Metrics (44)
• Release (36)
• Tips and Tricks (26)
• scopus (19)

Recent Posts

• Meet the CSAB: Professor & Subject Chair Henry Wai-chung Yeung
• CiteScore 2023: A comprehensive, clear and current metric for journal impact
• Scopus AI Release: May 2024
• Enhancements to Citation Overview on Scopus
• ACRL Webinar - Unlocking Insights with Generative AI: How to Enhance Research Efficiency in the Library

Scopus Tip & Trick: How to export your bibliography from Scopus for use in NIH platforms and tools

Exportscopusauthordetailsintosciencv.png.

To learn how this works, follow this tip & trick. It walks you through exporting your Scopus author profile in an RIS format file, importing it into NIH My NCIB tools, using the profile data in the SciENcv platform to create a biosketch, and adding it to your NIH RePORTER profile.

Step 1: Find, check and export your Scopus profile

• Run an Author search on Scopus using your first name, last name, ORCID iD etc.
• From the author search results, find and click on your name to open the Author details page

ScopusAuthorDetailsPage_exportingbibliography

• Review your details page (TIP: Refer to this tip & trick for help on checking the accuracy of your profile ) 

NOTE: If you plan to share your profile on NIH RePORTER, be sure to copy or write down the URL of your Scopus author profile page.

• Go to the Documents tab, which appears just below the author summary box. In this tab, you will find your list of documents indexed on Scopus.
• Look for and click the Export icon (Note: Depending on how you use Scopus, this might be displayed according to your export preference., i.e. Save to Mendeley , Export all to RIS file, etc. To select a different export method than what is displayed, click on the drop-down arrow).
• From the pop-up menu, select RIS format for your file format and Citation information only as the information to export
• Click Export and save the file to use in the desired application or program

ScopusAuthorDetailsPage_step2

Step 2: Import your profile into NIH My NCBI My Bibliography

• Go to the NIH's NCBI and click on “Sign in to NCBI” on the top right corner of the screen.
• Enter your details and sign in.
• Once signed in, click on “My NCBI”.
• Select “Manage My Bibliography”.
• Click “Upload a file” on the right hand side of the page.
• Select the RIS file you saved from Scopus.
• After completing these steps, NCBI will upload your information and, if required, assist you in completing any additional steps, such as providing additional information about publications such as their PMCIDs.

Step 3: Get your profile URL from My NCBI

Follow the instruction which applies to you:

Get a profile URL from My NCBI Collection:

• Go to the homepage for My NCBI and click on “Public” in My Bibliography collection.
• Copy the URL from the section “Share your bibliography with this URL”.

Get a profile URL from My NCBI Sketchbook:

• Go to the homepage for My NCBI and click on “Manage SciENcv” or, if this section is empty, go to “Click here to create a new CV.”
• Provide the required information (i.e. Name, Format (NIH Biosketch)), and click “Create”.
• Go to the section “C. Contribution to Science” and click “Edit”.
• Select “Include link” and then click “Done”.
• You will see a new link beginning with http://bit.ly/ . This leads to your list of publications as curated on NIH My NCBI. Copy the link so you can reuse it in NIH RePORTER.

Step 4: Add your Scopus and My NCBI profile URLs to your NIH RePORTER profile

• Go to NIH RePORTER .
• Search for your name using the query section. Note: You will find your name only if you have been a PI or Project Lead on an awarded grant.
• Click on your name in the results list.
• Click “Click here to manage your profile list”.
• Paste in your Scopus author profile and NCBI My Bibliography links (as explained in steps 1 and 2 above)  
• Click “Submit profile”.
• Once finished, you should receive a confirmation email.

This tip & trick is based on the help file: “ How do I export my Scopus data into NIH My Bibliography and SciENcv ?” found on the Scopus Support Center.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

The top list of academic search engines

1. Google Scholar

4. science.gov, 5. semantic scholar, 6. baidu scholar, get the most out of academic search engines, frequently asked questions about academic search engines, related articles.

Academic search engines have become the number one resource to turn to in order to find research papers and other scholarly sources. While classic academic databases like Web of Science and Scopus are locked behind paywalls, Google Scholar and others can be accessed free of charge. In order to help you get your research done fast, we have compiled the top list of free academic search engines.

Google Scholar is the clear number one when it comes to academic search engines. It's the power of Google searches applied to research papers and patents. It not only lets you find research papers for all academic disciplines for free but also often provides links to full-text PDF files.

• Coverage: approx. 200 million articles
• Abstracts: only a snippet of the abstract is available
• Related articles: ✔
• References: ✔
• Cited by: ✔
• Links to full text: ✔
• Export formats: APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, Vancouver, RIS, BibTeX

BASE is hosted at Bielefeld University in Germany. That is also where its name stems from (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine).

• Coverage: approx. 136 million articles (contains duplicates)
• Abstracts: ✔
• Related articles: ✘
• References: ✘
• Cited by: ✘
• Export formats: RIS, BibTeX

CORE is an academic search engine dedicated to open-access research papers. For each search result, a link to the full-text PDF or full-text web page is provided.

• Coverage: approx. 136 million articles
• Links to full text: ✔ (all articles in CORE are open access)
• Export formats: BibTeX

Science.gov is a fantastic resource as it bundles and offers free access to search results from more than 15 U.S. federal agencies. There is no need anymore to query all those resources separately!

• Coverage: approx. 200 million articles and reports
• Links to full text: ✔ (available for some databases)
• Export formats: APA, MLA, RIS, BibTeX (available for some databases)

Semantic Scholar is the new kid on the block. Its mission is to provide more relevant and impactful search results using AI-powered algorithms that find hidden connections and links between research topics.

• Coverage: approx. 40 million articles
• Export formats: APA, MLA, Chicago, BibTeX

Although Baidu Scholar's interface is in Chinese, its index contains research papers in English as well as Chinese.

• Coverage: no detailed statistics available, approx. 100 million articles
• Abstracts: only snippets of the abstract are available
• Export formats: APA, MLA, RIS, BibTeX

RefSeek searches more than one billion documents from academic and organizational websites. Its clean interface makes it especially easy to use for students and new researchers.

• Coverage: no detailed statistics available, approx. 1 billion documents
• Abstracts: only snippets of the article are available
• Export formats: not available

Consider using a reference manager like Paperpile to save, organize, and cite your references. Paperpile integrates with Google Scholar and many popular databases, so you can save references and PDFs directly to your library using the Paperpile buttons:

Google Scholar is an academic search engine, and it is the clear number one when it comes to academic search engines. It's the power of Google searches applied to research papers and patents. It not only let's you find research papers for all academic disciplines for free, but also often provides links to full text PDF file.

Semantic Scholar is a free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature developed at the Allen Institute for AI. Sematic Scholar was publicly released in 2015 and uses advances in natural language processing to provide summaries for scholarly papers.

BASE , as its name suggest is an academic search engine. It is hosted at Bielefeld University in Germany and that's where it name stems from (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine).

CORE is an academic search engine dedicated to open access research papers. For each search result a link to the full text PDF or full text web page is provided.

Science.gov is a fantastic resource as it bundles and offers free access to search results from more than 15 U.S. federal agencies. There is no need any more to query all those resources separately!

• SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
• COVID-19 Library Updates
• Make Appointment

Faculty Research Guide: Where do I publish my research?

• Where do I publish my research?
• Impact Metrics
• Institutional Repository
• Grants and funding resources
• Connect to your Scholarly Community

Finding a Journal to Publish In

• Cabells Scholarly Analytics Effective July 1, 2024, Cabells "Journalytics" will longer be available to DePaul University. Similar alternatives resources include Web of Science and Scopus. Visit our Cancellations page to learn more. If you have any questions, please contact John Leeker.
• Ulrich's International Periodicals This link opens in a new window Directory of journals and magazines published worldwide. Extent: Multidisciplinary
• DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals This link opens in a new window The most comprehensive searchable index of free scientific and scholarly content in full-text format; more than 8,300 journal titles and more than 920,000 articles Access note: Freely available to the public. Extent: Multidisciplinary

Tools to Measure Journal Impact (Impact Factor)

Journal-level metrics on scopus .

• CiteScore metrics 

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 

Source normalized impact per paper (snip).

A family of eight indicators that offer complementary views to analyze the publication influence of serial titles of interest. Derived from the Scopus database, CiteScore metrics offer a more transparent, current, comprehensive and accurate indication of a serial’s impact. CiteScore metrics are available for 28,000+ active titles, including 15,000+ more than Journal Impact Factor.

CiteScore only includes peer-reviewed research: articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters, covering 4 years of citations and publications. Historical data back to CiteScore 2011 have been recalculated and are displayed on Scopus. 

Based on the concept of a transfer of prestige between journals via their citation links. Drawing on a similar approach to the Google PageRank algorithm - which assumes that important websites are linked to from other important websites - SJR weights each incoming citation to a journal by the SJR of the citing journal, with a citation from a high-SJR source counting for more than a citation from a low-SJR source. The calculation of the final SJR of a journal is a complex and iterative process.

Measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. The impact of a single citation is given higher value in subject areas where citations are less likely, and vice versa. 

For more information, see  Overview of journal metrics tutorial.

Comparing Journals in Scopus

Compare up to 10 sources and review results on a chart or in table format 

Search for sources to compare by title, ISSN, publisher, subject area 

Compare CiteScore for each publication by year 

Compare SNIP for each publication by year 

Compare SJR for each publication by year 

Compare number of documents for each publication by year 

Compare percent of articles cited for each publication by year 

Compare percent of review articles published in each publication by year  

For more information, see  How to compare sources tutorial.

Evaluating Journal Quality and Reputation

Principles of Transparency

1.  Peer review process:  All of a journal’s content, apart from any editorial material that is clearly marked as such, shall be subjected to peer review. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers expert in the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. This process, as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer review procedures, shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site.

2.  Governing Body:  Journals shall have editorial boards or other governing bodies whose members are recognized experts in the subject areas included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors shall be provided on the journal’s Web site.

3.  Editorial team/contact information  Journals shall provide the full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors on the journal’s Web site as well as contact information for the editorial office.

4.  Author fees:  Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal shall be clearly stated in a place that is easy for potential authors to find prior to submitting their manuscripts for review or explained to authors before they begin preparing their manuscript for submission.

5.  Copyright:   Copyright and licensing information shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site, and licensing terms shall be indicated on all published articles, both HTML and PDFs.

6.  Identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct:  Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in their journal – the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.

7.  Ownership and management:  Information about the ownership and/or management of a journal shall be clearly indicated on the journal’s Web site. Publishers shall not use organizational names that would mislead potential authors and editors about the nature of the journal’s owner.

8.  Web site:   A journal’s Web site, including the text that it contains, shall demonstrate that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards.

9.  Name of journal : The Journal name shall be unique and not be one that is easily confused with another journal or that might mislead potential authors and readers about the Journal’s origin or association with other journals.

10.  Conflicts of interest : A journal shall have clear policies on handling potential conflicts of interest  of editors, authors, and reviewers and the policies should be clearly stated.

11.  Access : The way(s) in which the journal and individual articles are available to readers and whether there are associated subscription or pay per view fees shall be stated.

12.  Revenue sources : Business models or revenue sources (eg, author fees, subscriptions, advertising, reprints, institutional support, and organizational support) shall be clearly stated or otherwise evident on the journal’s Web site.

13.  Advertising : Journals shall state their advertising policy if relevant, including what types of ads will be considered, who makes decisions regarding accepting ads and whether they are linked to content or reader behavior (online only) or are displayed at random.

14.  Publishing schedule:  The periodicity at which a journal publishes shall be clearly indicated.

15.  Archiving:  A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content (for example, access to main articles via CLOCKSS or PubMedCentral) in the event a journal is no longer published shall be clearly indicated.

16.  Direct marketing:  Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal, shall be appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive.

From the  Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing , jointly developed by the  Committee on Publication Ethics , the  Directory of Open Access Journals , the  Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association , and the  World Association of Medical Editors .

Journal Impact

The  impact factor (IF)  is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times its articles are cited.

Google Scholar

Google Scholar list of Top Publications . Use the Categories and Subcategories drop down menus to select the relevant field and view journals by h-index.

• << Previous: ORCID iD's
• Next: Impact Metrics >>
• Last Updated: Jul 9, 2024 2:06 PM
• URL: https://libguides.depaul.edu/c.php?g=1403732

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 11.7.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Comparison of the Response to an Electronic Versus a Traditional Informed Consent Procedure in Terms of Clinical Patient Characteristics: Observational Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Anna G M Zondag 1 , MSc   ; 
• Marieke J Hollestelle 2 , PhD   ; 
• Rieke van der Graaf 2 , PhD   ; 
• Hendrik M Nathoe 3 , MD, PhD   ; 
• Wouter W van Solinge 1 , PhD   ; 
• Michiel L Bots 2 , MD, PhD   ; 
• Robin W M Vernooij 2, 4 , PhD   ; 
• Saskia Haitjema 1 , MD, PhD   ; 
• UCC-CVRM study group 5

1 Central Diagnostic Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

2 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

3 Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

4 Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

5 See Acknowledgements

Corresponding Author:

Anna G M Zondag, MSc

Central Diagnostic Laboratory

University Medical Center Utrecht

Utrecht University

Heidelberglaan 100

Utrecht, 3584 CX

Netherlands

Phone: 31 631117922

Email: [email protected]

Background: Electronic informed consent (eIC) is increasingly used in clinical research due to several benefits including increased enrollment and improved efficiency. Within a learning health care system, a pilot was conducted with an eIC for linking data from electronic health records with national registries, general practitioners, and other hospitals.

Objective: We evaluated the eIC pilot by comparing the response to the eIC with the former traditional paper-based informed consent (IC). We assessed whether the use of eIC resulted in a different study population by comparing the clinical patient characteristics between the response categories of the eIC and former face-to-face IC procedure.

Methods: All patients with increased cardiovascular risk visiting the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, were eligible for the learning health care system. From November 2021 to August 2022, an eIC was piloted at the cardiology outpatient clinic. Prior to the pilot, a traditional face-to-face paper-based IC approach was used. Responses (ie, consent, no consent, or nonresponse) were assessed and compared between the eIC and face-to-face IC cohorts. Clinical characteristics of consenting and nonresponding patients were compared between and within the eIC and the face-to-face cohorts using multivariable regression analyses.

Results: A total of 2254 patients were included in the face-to-face IC cohort and 885 patients in the eIC cohort. Full consent was more often obtained in the eIC than in the face-to-face cohort (415/885, 46.9% vs 876/2254, 38.9%, respectively). Apart from lower mean hemoglobin in the full consent group of the eIC cohort (8.5 vs 8.8; P =.0021), the characteristics of the full consenting patients did not differ between the eIC and face-to-face IC cohorts. In the eIC cohort, only age differed between the full consent and the nonresponse group (median 60 vs 56; P =.0002, respectively), whereas in the face-to-face IC cohort, the full consent group seemed healthier (ie, higher hemoglobin, lower glycated hemoglobin [HbA 1c ], lower C-reactive protein levels) than the nonresponse group.

Conclusions: More patients provided full consent using an eIC. In addition, the study population remained broadly similar. The face-to-face IC approach seemed to result in a healthier study population (ie, full consenting patients) than the patients without IC, while in the eIC cohort, the characteristics between consent groups were comparable. Thus, an eIC may lead to a better representation of the target population, increasing the generalizability of results.

Introduction

The use of electronic informed consent (eIC) procedures in clinical research is increasing due to several benefits, including increased enrollment and improved efficiency, by reducing the need for on-site research staff and the associated paperwork [ 1 - 3 ]. eICs have the potential to improve the patient experience (eg, patient understanding and confidence) of the informed consent (IC) process, in part because of the ability to include digital multimedia [ 4 , 5 ]. Alternatively, concerns were raised about whether eIC forms are easily accessible to an elderly population and those with limited digital literacy [ 6 ], making it more difficult to assess whether the patient has fully understood the IC form, one of the requirements for a valid IC [ 7 ]. Standardized best practices for eIC procedures are still lacking [ 5 , 8 ].

In 2014, the University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands initiated the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-CardioVascular Risk Management (UCC-CVRM) as a learning health care system (LHS). The UCC-CVRM LHS aims to improve uniform assessment and registration of cardiovascular risk indicators, based on Dutch national guidelines, in electronic health records (EHRs) for all patients referred to the UMC Utrecht for cardiovascular evaluation [ 9 ]. In an LHS, care and research are integrated in such a way that health care activities are continuously analyzed and the knowledge gained from these analyses is used to improve care by changing health care practices [ 10 ]. In the case of UCC-CVRM LHS, a traditional face-to-face IC procedure was used for blood sample storage in a biobank and the reuse of routine care data for scientific research purposes including linkage of data from EHRs to national registries [ 9 ]. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the UCC-CVRM steering committee evaluated the study including the IC procedure [ 11 , 12 ]. In short, less than half of the patients who were invited to participate, 41.5% (2378/5730), provided written IC [ 12 ]. Next, patients who did consent differed in clinical characteristics from those nonconsenting or nonresponding, clearly leading to a selection of patients not representable for all eligible patients. For example, consenting patients had a lower cardiovascular disease burden than nonconsenting patients [ 11 , 12 ]. In addition, structured registration of cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) indicators in the EHR was worse compared with consenting patients. This selection is detrimental to an LHS, as the population included in the LHS may be less representative of the target population as a whole [ 11 , 12 ]. Finally, eligible patients were not invited, mainly because of the time-consuming and unsustainable IC procedure due to changes in personnel and changes in priorities during peak periods (eg, the COVID-19 pandemic) [ 13 ].

Therefore, the UCC-CVRM steering committee decided to alter the approach. Identification of eligible patients for the LHS was to be automated and CVRM data, to be assessed regularly in patients at higher cardiovascular risk, were extracted from structured fields in the EHR. To still enable the linkage of this patient information to data from national registries, general practitioners (GPs), and other hospitals, an eIC procedure was piloted. This study aims to evaluate the eIC procedure by studying the response to the IC form. In addition, we aim to assess whether the change in the IC procedure leads to a different study population by investigating potential differences in clinical characteristics between the response categories of the eIC compared with the former face-to-face IC procedure.

We used the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement as a reporting guideline for this study.

Study Setting

Patients visiting the UMC Utrecht for the first time for the evaluation of cardiovascular disease or risk factors were eligible for inclusion in the UCC-CVRM LHS. The full rationale of UCC-CVRM has been described elsewhere [ 9 ]. The eIC pilot was conducted between November 2021 and August 2022. During this period, all patients (18 years and older) visiting the cardiology outpatient clinic for first-time evaluation automatically received an email. This email notified these patients about UCC-CVRM and the associated eIC form that was available for completion in the UMC Utrecht patient portal. The IC procedures of the face-to-face IC and eIC are illustrated in Figure 1 . The full details eIC form presented to the patients in the patient portal are included in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

In both the face-to-face IC and the eIC forms, IC was asked for linkage with national registries, GPs, and other hospitals through the following two statements: (1) I consent to future requests to link with various international or national registries, such as the Central Bureau of Statistics (also known as Statistics Netherlands) where all causes of death are registered, the Dutch Cancer Registration (NKR), where all people with cancer are registered, the National Basic Registration of Hospital Care (LBZ), where all hospital admissions are registered, the Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics (SFK), where all people who use medicines are registered, and other regional and national registries. (2) I consent to the retrieval of my medical information from my GP, my pharmacy, and any other hospitals where I have been treated in the past.

Data Collection

We collected data from all patients aged 18 years or older referred to a cardiology outpatient clinic. We used the Utrecht Patient Oriented Database to collect data from the patients who participated in the eIC pilot, referred to as the “eIC cohort.” The Utrecht Patient Oriented Database comprises data on, among others, patient characteristics and laboratory tests for all patients treated at the UMC Utrecht since 2004 [ 14 ]. We collected routine care data related to the patient’s demographics and cardiovascular risk, namely blood pressure, BMI, and laboratory measurements (serum lipids, glycated hemoglobin [HbA 1c ], hemoglobin, and renal function). These data were also collected for the cardiology patients who were invited during the period in which a face-to-face IC procedure was in place, referred to as the “face-to-face IC cohort.” From the face-to-face IC cohort, only patients invited up until December 31, 2019, were included because the COVID-19 pandemic significantly hampered the face-to-face IC procedure.

All measurements were extracted from structured fields in the EHR. Blood pressure values were extracted from the EHR ±7 days from the date of the visit at the cardiology outpatient clinic. For other measurements, the closest value, within ±21 days of the visit date, was extracted. If no measurements were found within these cutoffs, the measurement was considered missing. An overview of missingness per variable is added as Multimedia Appendix 2 . Age was calculated by subtracting the date of the visit from the patient’s date of birth. The estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation and used as a measure of renal function [ 15 ].

Data Analyses

We presented the yield for both the eIC and face-to-face IC cohort as counts and the percentages of patients who, (1) consented to the linkage of their data with their GP, pharmacy, and other hospitals, and linkage with national registries (ie, “full consent”); (2) did not consent for the linkage of their data with their GP, pharmacy, and other hospitals, nor to the linkage with national registries (ie, “nonconsent”); (3) consented to only 1 of the 2; and (4) the percentage of patients who did not respond at all or provided an answer for only 1 of the 2 statements (ie, “nonresponse”). Due to the limited number of observations in some IC response groups (n<25), especially in the eIC cohort, other than the full consent (n=1291) and nonresponse (n=1477) group, further analyses were restricted to the full consent and nonresponse group only.

To assess differences in patient groups, characteristics of the patients with full consent were stratified by cohort (ie, eIC cohort vs face-to-face IC cohort). As a supplement, we also explored the characteristics of the nonresponders by cohort. Finally, we assessed the differences in patient characteristics between the response categories within each cohort (ie, full consent versus nonresponse).

Clinical characteristics were presented as means with corresponding SDs, medians with corresponding interquartile ranges, or counts and percentages, as appropriate. To quantify differences in characteristics between cohorts, or response categories within cohorts, we performed multivariable linear regression analyses, adjusted for age, categorized into 4 categories with an approximately equal number of observations (18 to 47, 48 to 60, 61 to 70, and 71 to 95 years old), and sex. The assumptions of linear regression (eg, approximate normal distribution of the error terms, homoscedasticity of errors) were assessed. Where needed, we used the Box-Cox method to estimate the most appropriate transformation of the dependent variable to stabilize the variance and improve the accuracy of our estimations [ 16 ]. Similarly, multivariable linear regression was used to assess the difference in age (as a continuous variable) between groups, adjusted for sex. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the difference in sex between the groups (ie, between the 2 cohorts and between the response categories within each cohort), adjusted for age (categorized into 4 categories with an approximately equal number of observations). As a sensitivity analysis, we repeated the adjusted regression analyses with age as a continuous variable, to assess whether the categorization led to different results.

We used the Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of a type I error resulting from the multiple tests [ 17 ]. Thus, the α that we considered as cutoff, .05, was divided by the number of analyses (N=13) performed per comparison. Therefore, a P value ≤.0038 was considered statistically significant.

All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.0.5; The R Foundation) [ 18 ].

Ethical Considerations

We obtained an additional ethical waiver (number 19/641) from the Research Ethics Committee Utrecht to examine the characteristics of patients in all IC response categories. Patients who objected to the use of their clinical data for research purposes via the UMC Utrecht opt-out procedure were excluded from this study. Data were pseudonymized and the patients did not receive any compensation for their participation in this study.

Yield of the IC Procedure

In total, 3139 patients participated in this study, of whom 885 (28.2%) participated in the eIC pilot cohort and 2254 (71.8%) in the face-to-face IC cohort ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ). Of all patients from the eIC cohort, 49.9% (442/885) completed the eIC form, 50.1% (443/885) did not respond. Of all patients who completed the eIC form, we obtained full consent for linkage with GPs, hospitals, and national registries from 93.9% (415/442) of the patients. In the face-to-face IC cohort, 54.1% (1220/2254) of all patients completed the IC form, and 45.9% (1034/2254) patients did not respond. The percentage of responding patients with full consent was higher in the eIC cohort as compared with the face-to-face IC cohort (415/442, 93.9% vs 876/1220, 71.8%, respectively).

Differences in Characteristics Between the eIC and Face-to-Face Cohorts

Overall, fully consenting patients had similar patient characteristics ( Table 1 ). Adjusted for sex and age, the eIC cohort had lower hemoglobin levels and higher HbA 1c levels than the face-to-face IC cohort, reaching the multiple testing threshold for statistical significance for hemoglobin ( P =.0021).

Similarly, we compared the (clinical) characteristics of the nonresponding patients between cohorts, shown in Multimedia Appendix 4 . Adjusted for sex, the nonresponders of the eIC cohort were significantly younger and had, adjusted for age and sex, lower c-reactive protein values than the nonresponders of the face-to-face cohort. No other differences were observed.

a eIC: electronic informed consent.

b F2F IC: face-to-face informed consent.

c Reference group.

d SAP: systolic arterial blood pressure.

e HbA 1c : glycated hemoglobin.

f HDL: high-density lipoprotein.

g LDL: low-density lipoprotein.

h CRP: c-reactive protein.

i eGFR CKD-EPI: estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation.

Differences in Characteristics Between Response Categories

Within each cohort, we assessed whether there were differences in characteristics between the response categories (ie, full consent vs nonresponse). In the eIC cohort, the nonresponse group was significantly younger than the full consent group ( Table 2 ). Other than that, the clinical characteristics of the full consent group were similar to those of the nonresponse group.

More differences were found between the response categories of the face-to-face IC cohort. Adjusted for age and sex, patients in the full consent group had higher hemoglobin, but lower HbA 1c and c-reactive protein values than the nonresponse group ( Table 3 ).

a Reference group.

b SAP: systolic arterial blood pressure.

c HbA 1c : glycated hemoglobin.

d HDL: high-density lipoprotein.

e LDL: low-density lipoprotein.

f CRP: c-reactive protein.

g eGFR CKD-EPI: estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation.

Sensitivity Analysis

We repeated the regression analyses adjusted for sex and age. In these regression analyses, age was maintained continuous instead of categorized, to assess whether the categorization of age led to different results. The results were similar ( Multimedia Appendix 5 ).

Principal Results

We showed that by using an eIC in an LHS, patients more often provided full consent to link their data to national registries, GPs, and other hospitals compared with a face-to-face IC procedure. The clinical characteristics of patients with full consent remained largely similar after changing the IC procedure to an eIC. Except for age, we did not find any differences between the response categories of the eIC cohort, whereas in the face-to-face cohort, several differences were found. These differences potentially suggest a higher (cardiovascular) disease burden in the nonresponse group compared with the full consent group, indicative of a potentially more pronounced selection in the face-to-face approach.

A possible explanation for the differences in characteristics between the response categories in the face-to-face cohort is that patients may have been too ill or frail to attend the physical appointment with the research nurse to discuss and sign the IC form, resulting in nonresponse. The inability to attend the appointment was probably less of an issue in the eIC cohort, as patients were able to access the eIC form remotely. The finding suggests that the use of eIC results in a study population (ie, those who give full consent) that is more representative of the full target population. Our findings agree with a previous study showing that providing computer-based clinical study information leads to more willingness to participate [ 19 ], as the increased willingness to participate is consistent with the higher full consent rates found in the eIC group compared with the face-to-face IC group in our study.

Frequently Mentioned Challenges of eICs in the Literature

Concerns have been raised about whether consent given via an eIC is truly an “informed” consent [ 8 ]. According to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki [ 7 ], potential participants must be adequately informed about various aspects of the study, such as its purpose, sources of funding, the anticipated benefits and potential risks, and the right to refuse or withdraw consent to participate without giving a reason [ 7 ]. According to previous research, comprehension assessment is more challenging when an eIC procedure is used as there is no direct interaction between the potential participant and researcher [ 6 ]. As a result, patients might provide consent without fully understanding what they are consenting to, or, conversely, patients may be less likely to consent because of the lack of personal interaction with the researcher or clinician, especially those who were already doubtful about participating in the first place. However, our findings indicate that the latter might not have been the case in our pilot study, as we observed a higher percentage of patients with full consent in the eIC cohort compared with the face-to-face IC cohort.

Another frequently mentioned concern is that studies using an eIC procedure could become inaccessible to patients who lack the digital literacy needed to access and understand the eIC form [ 6 ]. In 2021, the Netherlands had the highest percentage (ie, 79%) of 17- to 74-year-olds with at least basic digital skills in Europe [ 20 ]. Therefore, incomprehension of the eIC due to limited digital literacy may appear less of an issue in our study. However, the percentage of persons with basic digital skills varied considerably by age, with older people being less literate [ 20 ]. A sensitivity analysis showed that the age distribution of responding patients was similar between the eIC and the face-to-face approach ( Multimedia Appendix 6 ), indicating that the eIC was not less accessible than the face-to-face IC for certain age groups. However, accessibility may be an issue for geriatric patients, who are generally older than cardiology patients and often have geriatric syndromes that sometimes affect comprehension and literacy [ 21 ]. These syndromes generally make it difficult to obtain IC from the elderly [ 21 ]. eIC could, therefore, also be seen as an opportunity. Unlike paper-based ICs, multiple formats can be used to inform the patient about the purpose of the eIC and to provide technical support, for example, by using instructional videos or audio. The use of multiple formats in IC forms for the elderly has been recommended by, among others, Barron et al [ 22 ]. Furthermore, UCC-CVRM’s eIC form is available in UMC Utrecht’s long-existing patient portal. In the portal, patients have the opportunity to, among others, ask questions to their clinician via an e-consult, which can be used if parts of the eIC are unclear [ 23 ]. Another possibility would be a hybrid format, allowing patients who prefer correspondence by regular mail to respond using a paper-based IC form. However, it is questionable whether this would be helpful and it would negate the positive aspects of the eIC highlighted in this study (eg, less pronounced selection).

Legislation and Regulation Regarding eIC

Since July 2022, eICs have been permitted in the Netherlands when certain conditions are met [ 24 ]. A total of 6 conditions are described in the guideline written by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek) and the Dutch Association of Medical Research Ethics Committees (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Medisch-Ethische toetsingscommissies) [ 25 ]. The most important conditions are (1) eIC must be appropriate for the study, meaning that the study is associated with low potential risk and burden for the patient, (2) the eIC process must be sufficiently reliable and confidential, guaranteed by an electronic system that is compliant to the Dutch General Data Protection Regulation (UAVG in Dutch) and ensures the validity of the electronic signatures, and (3) the eIC procedure must be described in the study protocol [ 24 , 25 ]. The implementation of an eIC seems appropriate in the case of the UCC-CVRM, as no potential risk or burden for the patient is involved. Furthermore, in the eIC of the UCC-CVRM, data security, identity verification, and the validity of the electronic signature are ensured by the Dutch digital ID, an identification method for accessing web-based services [ 26 ]. Regarding the third condition, an amendment to the UCC-CVRM approach, including the eIC, was submitted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee.

Clinical Implications

Based on the results of our study, the use of eIC to obtain IC might be a sustainable and adequate way to enable researchers to link with national registries, GPs, and other hospitals. The use of the eIC seemed to have resulted in a population with consent that is more similar to the target population compared with the face-to-face IC, which is of great importance in an LHS. Results from the LHS would be more generalizable to the target population, namely to all patients at higher cardiovascular risk. Yet, one may argue whether ≈50% response to both the electronic and face-to-face IC for an LHS approach is sufficient. In addition, it should be noted that the extractability of CVRM indicators from structured fields in the EHR was much lower in the eIC cohort compared with the face-to-face IC cohort. Groenhof et al [ 13 ] showed that the former, protocolized, face-to-face UCC-CVRM approach led to more systematic registration of the cardiovascular risk profile in the EHR, which had a positive effect on CVRM guideline adherence in consenting patients, compared with the situation before UCC-CVRM was introduced [ 13 ]. The substantial missingness in the eIC cohort of our study may suggest that these improvements are at risk when the approach is automated, as deviations from the initial protocol are made, potentially leading to suboptimal CVRM in clinical care.

Exploring the views and experiences of patients could help to further improve the eIC form. Therefore, we recommend further qualitative research into the accessibility and understandability of eICs used for similar purposes and in similar settings as the UCC-CVRM LHS from a patient’s perspective.

Strengths and Limitations

To the best of our knowledge, we are among the first to investigate the differences in clinical patient characteristics between response categories of an eIC compared with those of a traditional face-to-face IC, specifically in the context of a cardiovascular LHS in a large sample of patients. Our uniqueness, however, limits the ability to compare our findings to the literature, as most research on eIC has focused on user perspectives, experiences, and the ethical considerations of eICs. For example, Chen et al [ 5 ] showed that in most included studies, participants had a better understanding of the information when using an eIC compared with a traditional paper-based face-to-face IC, while others found no difference [ 5 ]. Nevertheless, they [ 5 ] and others [ 2 , 6 , 27 ] indicated that face-to-face interaction should remain part of the IC process, especially for more complex and higher-risk studies. However, as the UCC-CVRM LHS is not a complex or high-risk study, the face-to-face interaction may be less necessary. Furthermore, the nonresponders in the eIC cohort may not be fully comparable to the nonresponders in the face-to-face IC cohort because, in the eIC cohort, patients received the eIC after their appointment at the cardiology outpatient clinic, whereas in the face-to-face IC cohort, cardiology patients were identified as eligible and received information about the UCC-CVRM LHS prior to their appointment. This means that patients who, for example, canceled their appointment at the last minute would still be included in the face-to-face cohort as nonresponders. It may be that patients who did not attend their appointment at all had different characteristics to those who attended but did not respond to the eIC, potentially affecting the validity of the comparisons made. Finally, the eIC form was piloted in the patient population of the cardiology outpatient clinic only. Although our results indicated that there were only minor differences (ie, hemoglobin) between patients providing full consent using the eIC compared with the face-to-face IC, it remains to be seen whether this would still be the case after implementation of the eIC in other clinical departments.

Conclusions

To conclude, our findings suggest that using an eIC may lead to a better representation of the target population by consenting patients. This increases the generalizability of results from studies using the data collected within the LHS from consenting patients.

Acknowledgments

The Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-Cardiovascular Risk Management (UCC-CVRM) is primarily financed by the University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht (contact information of UCC-CVRM is [email protected]). AGMZ was supported by a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement number 101017331; ODIN). MJH and RvdG were supported by the ZonMw, ETHMIRE project (grant agreement number 91217027). The funding sources were not involved in the design of the study, the analysis and interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Members of the UCC-CVRM study group were the following: GJ de Borst, Department of Vascular Surgery; ML Bots (chair), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care; M Hollander, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care; MH Emmelot, Department of Geriatrics; PA de Jong, Department of Radiology; AT Lely, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology; HM Nathoe, Department of Cardiology; IE Hoefer, Central Diagnostic Laboratory; NP van der Kaaij, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery; YM Ruigrok, Department of Neurology; and MC Verhaar, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, FLJ Visseren, Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht and Utrecht University.

Authors' Contributions

AGMZ, HMN, WWvS, MLB, SH, and RWMV contributed to the conceptualization of the project. AGMZ, RWMV, SH, WWvS, and MLB contributed to the methodology of the project. AGMZ analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. AGMZ, MJH, RvdG, HMN, WWvS, MLB, SH, and RWMV contributed substantially to the interpretation of the data. The final manuscript was critically reviewed and edited by all authors. Approval of the final manuscript was obtained by all authors.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

The electronic informed consent form as presented in the patient portal of the UMC (University Medical Center) Utrecht (translated from Dutch to English).

Missingness per variable in count and percentage, by cohort and informed consent response strata.

Yield (ie, response to the informed consent invitation), by type of informed consent. eIC: electronic informed consent; GP: general practitioner.

Differences between patients who did not respond, by cohort, adjusted for age and sex.

Results of the sensitivity analysis in which age is treated as a continuous variable instead of categorical variable.

Age distribution of patients who completed the informed consent form, stratified by cohort.

• Simon CM, Klein DW, Schartz HA. Traditional and electronic informed consent for biobanking: a survey of U.S. biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank. 2014;12(6):423-429. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Skelton E, Drey N, Rutherford M, Ayers S, Malamateniou C. Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: a review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting. Int J Med Inform. 2020;143:104271. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Phillippi JC, Doersam JK, Neal JL, Roumie CL. Electronic informed consent to facilitate recruitment of pregnant women into research. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2018;47(4):529-534. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Boutin NT, Mathieu K, Hoffnagle AG, Allen NL, Castro VM, Morash M, et al. Implementation of electronic consent at a biobank: an opportunity for precision medicine research. J Pers Med. 2016;6(2):17. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chen C, Lee P, Pain KJ, Delgado D, Cole CL, Campion TR. Replacing paper informed consent with electronic informed consent for research in academic medical centers: a scoping review. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2020;2020:80-88. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Yusof MYPM, Teo CH, Ng CJ. Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(1):117. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Declaration of helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. World Medical Association. 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​wma.net/​policies-post/​wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/​ [accessed 2023-05-05]
• Lunt H, Connor S, Skinner H, Brogden G. Electronic informed consent: the need to redesign the consent process for the digital age. Intern Med J. 2019;49(7):923-929. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Asselbergs FW, Visseren FL, Bots ML, de Borst GJ, Buijsrogge MP, Dieleman JM, et al. Uniform data collection in routine clinical practice in cardiovascular patients for optimal care, quality control and research: the Utrecht cardiovascular cohort. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24(8):840-847. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wouters RHP, van der Graaf R, Voest EE, Bredenoord AL. Learning health care systems: highly needed but challenging. Learn Health Syst. 2020;4(3):e10211. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Groenhof TKJ, Mostert M, Lea NC, Haitjema S, de Vries MC, van Dijk WB, et al. How traditional informed consent impairs inclusivity in a learning healthcare system: lessons learned from the Utrecht cardiovascular cohort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:190-194. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zondag AGM, Groenhof TKJ, van der Graaf R, van Solinge WW, Bots ML, Haitjema S, et al. UCC-CVRM study group. Asking informed consent may lead to significant participation bias and suboptimal cardiovascular risk management in learning healthcare systems. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):98. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Groenhof TKJ, Haitjema S, Lely AT, Grobbee DE, Asselbergs FW, Bots ML, et al. UCC-CVRMUPOD Study groups. Optimizing cardiovascular risk assessment and registration in a developing cardiovascular learning health care system: women benefit most. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;2(2):e0000190. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• ten Berg MJ, Huisman A, van den Bemt PMLA, Schobben AFAM, Egberts ACG, van Solinge WW. Linking laboratory and medication data: new opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological research. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(1):13-19. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF, Feldman HI, et al. CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration). A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):604-612. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Glen S. Box cox transformation: definition, examples. Statistics How To. URL: https:/​/www.​statisticshowto.com/​probability-and-statistics/​normal-distributions/​box-cox-transformation/​ [accessed 2023-08-09]
• VanderWeele TJ, Mathur MB. Some desirable properties of the bonferroni correction: is the bonferroni correction really so bad? Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(3):617-618. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. 2021. URL: https://www.R-project.org/ [accessed 2022-08-31]
• Karunaratne AS, Korenman SG, Thomas SL, Myles PS, Komesaroff PA. Improving communication when seeking informed consent: a randomised controlled study of a computer-based method for providing information to prospective clinical trial participants. Med J Aust. Apr 2010;192(7):388-392. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dutch digital skills at the top in Europe. CBS. 2022. URL: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/19/dutch-digital-skills-at-the-top-in-europe [accessed 2023-04-20]
• Cherubini A, Gasperini B. How to increase the participation of older subjects in research: good practices and more evidence are needed! Age Ageing. 2017;46(6):878-881. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Barron JS, Duffey PL, Byrd LJ, Campbell R, Ferrucci L. Informed consent for research participation in frail older persons. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004;16(1):79-85. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• My UMC Utrecht patient portal. UMC Utrecht. URL: https://www.umcutrecht.nl/nl/inloggen-patientenportaal?lang=en [accessed 2023-08-10]
• Consent: on paper or electronic (in Dutch only). CCMO. URL: https://tinyurl.com/bdzach6u [accessed 2023-04-11]
• Guide to granting electronic consent for participation in medical-scientific research (in Dutch only). CCMO, NVMETC. 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​ccmo.nl/​metcs/​publicaties/​publicaties/​2022/​08/​31/​handreiking-elektronische-toestemmingsverlening [accessed 2023-04-11]
• What is DigiD? Netherlands Worldwide. 2024. URL: https://www.netherlandsworldwide.nl/digid-abroad/what-is-digid [accessed 2023-07-26]
• De Sutter E, Zaçe D, Boccia S, Di Pietro ML, Geerts D, Borry P, et al. Implementation of electronic informed consent in biomedical research and stakeholders' perspectives: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(10):e19129. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 29.11.23; peer-reviewed by CMJ Wong, H Kondylakis; comments to author 28.02.24; revised version received 15.04.24; accepted 10.05.24; published 11.07.24.

©Anna G M Zondag, Marieke J Hollestelle, Rieke van der Graaf, Hendrik M Nathoe, Wouter W van Solinge, Michiel L Bots, Robin W M Vernooij, Saskia Haitjema, UCC-CVRM study group. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.07.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

• Scopus: Access and use Support Center

To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.

• Support Center
• Using the product

How do I find Open Access documents and journals in Scopus?

You can locate Open Access (OA) journals and/or articles by conducting a Document search , Advanced search , or using the Scopus Sources feature. Any search result providing documents or sources that are considered OA, indicate they are Open Access below the title.

Open Access refers to journals and articles in which all peer reviewed scholarly articles are online and available without restrictions.

Open Access (OA) filters are available in Scopus and Scopus API to provide greater clarity and a breakdown of the type of Open Access per document. There are currently ~17 million articles in Scopus using this Open Access classification system and Scopus is planning to expand its definition of Open Access to include those available in open repositories.

How do I find and filter Open Access documents?

• Perform a Document search . The Document search results page opens.
• All Open Access: All documents that fall within any of the Scopus Open Access filters.
• Gold: Documents are in journals which only publish open access.
• Hybrid Gold: Documents are in journals which provide authors the choice of publishing open access.
• Bronze: Bronze status is assigned to a document if there is another (publisher-specific) license other than a Creative Commons license (such as Elsevier’s publisher license for Open Archive), or no license at all.
• Green: Documents may be available as gold or other free-to-read forms on the publisher platform.
• Click 'Limit to' . The Document search results list updates and the Open Access indicator appears below each Open Access title.

Where are the Open Access definitions derived from?

The Scopus source for OA documents is Unpaywall , a database run by Impactstory (a non-profit organization) which harvest Open Access content from over 50,000 publishers and repositories.

Which Open Access filters are supported in Scopus?

Where can I find the Open Access indicators and filters?

You can filter results on the Documents Results page filter panel. You can filter by all Open Access documents or by each of the OA tags: gold, hybrid gold, green and bronze.

From the Scopus Advanced search, the OA filters are found under the Document field code section. The values, in combination with the OA field code, allow users to build queries using the OA filters.

The Advanced search page also allows you to search for Green Final and Green Accepted OA documents if there is a need for a more granular view of Green OA documents. Green Final and Green Accepted OA filters are not available on the Document search results page filter panel.

Advanced Search queries with OA filter examples

You can search Gold Open Access articles only and add a Boolean operator to search for other field codes like ABS or TITLE-ABS-KEY():

• Entering (OA(publisherfullgold) OR OA(publisherhybridgold)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(heart) returns documents with Heart that are Gold Open Access only
• Entering TITLE-ABS-KEY(heart) AND NOT OA(ALL) returns documents with Heart that exclude Open Access documents

Why am I seeing more documents per OA filter than the total document results count?

An Open Access document in Scopus can be tagged with more than one OA status as an article can be available in different OA versions (such as Gold and Green). In the OA filter facet, there is a count for Gold and Green for the same document. Note: There is not duplicate counting for publisher-enabled OA documents (Gold, Hybrid-Gold, and Bronze categories).

How often is the Open Access information updated in Scopus?

Scopus receives weekly updates from Unpaywall for the documents indexed in Scopus.

Are the Open Access filters available via the Scopus APIs?

Users can use the same search queries and OA values, as explained on the Advanced Search page, with the Scopus document search and retrieval APIs.

How can I identify which document is an Open Access document in Scopus?

On the Scopus Document details page there is an Open Access label to indicate that a document is OA after the document title.

On the Scopus document search result pages there is an Open Access label below the document title for each separate title if a document is OA.

Can I search for the status of the Creative Commons license of a document in Scopus?

No, Creative Commons (CC) license information is not searchable via Scopus.

Open Access (OA) in Scopus is represented at the journal/source level. Out of the +21,000 active journals indexed in Scopus, approximately 4,065 (and increasing) are registered as OA journals. Open Access refers to journals and articles in which all peer reviewed scholarly articles are online and available without restrictions.

Open Access journals are indicated in orange text as Open Access on any results list where they are available, the Scopus Sources page, or on a Source details page.

How do I find and filter Open Access journals?

• From the Sources page, enter a source title, ISSN, or publisher name using the drop-down list.
• Click 'Find sources' . The Sources list updates to reflect the entered search criteria.
• From the Filter refine list, select 'Display only Open Access journals' .
• Click 'Apply' . The Source listing updates and the Open Access indicator appears next to each Open Access title.

Where are Open Access for jounals definitions derived from?

In Scopus, journals are registered as being Open Access only if they are registered as Gold OA or Subsidized OA at one or both of the following:

• Directory of Open Access Journals: https://doaj.org/
• Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources: http://road.issn.org/

What is included?

View of the OA journal types is included in the OA journal list, when registered at the Directory of Open Access Journals, and/or the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources.

These journal types are excluded from the OA journal list:

Scopus updates the OA journal list portion of the Scopus Title list ( http://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content#content-policy-and-selection ) once a year at the end of May, which may lead to minor and temporary discrepancies in the OA journal status.

See All Science Journal Classification Codes (ASJC) to review all ASJC codes used for Scopus sources.

Was this answer helpful?

Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.

Help us to help you:

Thank you for your feedback!

• Why was this answer not helpful?
• It was hard to understand / follow.
• It did not answer my question.
• The solution did not work.
• There was a mistake in the answer.
• Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form

Related Articles:

• What can I do on a Source details page?
• How do I use the Scopus Sources feature?
• How do I work with document search results?
• How are CiteScore metrics used in Scopus?
• What is Scopus Preview?

For further assistance: