Note from the Editor-in-Chief:Accurate Subject Classification: A Prerequisite for Correct Journal Ranking and Scientific Fairness

The most important steps that can affect the actual performance of journals are the evaluation, validation, and correct ranking of scientific journals; Because the journals placed in the top positions always have more chances to receive points and better opportunities. Increasing the chances of receiving high-quality articles from prominent authors and then being in the spotlight of the specialized field and providing better grounds for moving in the center of influencing the global flow of specialized knowledge are among the advantages that a journal gains as a result of being placed in the top positions.
However, the performance of citation databases such as JCR, Scimago, and PJCR is of particular importance; and as much as the correct functioning of these databases can lead to the correct ranking of journals, their incorrect functioning can lead to unrealistic and incorrect validation and ranking of journals. In the meantime, the subject classification considered by databases for journals is regarded as one of the most important factors affecting their validation and correct ranking. Because it gives sense to the position of journals, and it is of great importance to show the real position of specialized journals. Since many journal evaluation indices such as IF, SJR, Q, and the like determine the rank of journals covered by the database through the subject area in ​​that journal and comparing it to other journals in that subject area, the importance of subject classification that the database considers for journals will be more understandable. Perhaps with the inappropriate subject classification of journals by databases such as JCR, Scimago, and PJCR and placing sub-specialized, specialized, and semi-specialized journals of a field next to each other the ranking of some valuable specialized journals even introduced as Q1 journals for years have been faced with uncertainty and the risk of degradation; Because naturally, due to the limited audience of specialized journals, each subject group will have a lower chance of receiving citations than the specialized and semi-specialized journals in the same subject group. And if the ranking of the current journals in each subject group is done regardless of the sub-specialized, specialized, and semi-specialized subject areas of the journals and only based on the number of citations they receive, it cannot be expected to convey reliable and correct messages about the true status of journals to the scientific community; and without a doubt, there will be many gaps in scientific fairness.
For example, we can refer to the LIS subject classification in the JCR database. In recent years, by adding a significant number of journals in the field of management to the subject group of LIS, competition is hardened for journals focusing on the specialized and sub-specialized layers of this field such as scientometrics, information organization, and the like; And it has decreased the chances of receiving citations for specialized journals in this field.
The same criticism is applied to the PJCR base in ISC on a much wider level. There are many specialized journals in this database, which have been degraded in terms of Q and gradually moved to lower ranks according to the macroscopic view of the subject classification, which is expected to improve the subject classification system of journals in that database, evaluating the journals by including sub-specialized and specialized layers Journals are made. On the other hand, this database is expected to improve the transparency of the results it provides for the evaluation of journals by establishing a link between the citation statistics and the cited records of the journals it covers and guiding the journals to obtain more accurate information. For instance, it would be desirable for a journal in the field of knowledge and information science to know how many citations are received from journals in the macro-level subject (for example, humanities and social sciences), and how many citations are from journals in the middle-level subject. (for example, librarianship, archive, and codicology and manuscript research) and how many citations from the present journals were in the micro-level subject (library and information sciences)?
Despite this, it seems that the Q assigned to the journals has been calculated and determined based on the total citations received from the journals present in PJCR, including the journals present at the macro, medium, and micro subject levels. In this case, since the specialized journals of each field are not comparable with the semi-specialized journals of their field in terms of the number of readers, the evaluation results of the journals provided by this database will not reflect the real and correct position of the sub-specialized journals without including the specialized considerations emphasized in scientometrics. In this way, what is more, worthy of consideration is whether the evaluation and ranking of journals in the form of incorrect subject groups can be aligned with scientific fairness and show the true status and quality of journals. And in order to move in the direction of scientific fairness, instead of relying on macro subject groups that contain a significant amount of unbalanced journals, should not the rankings and citation validations of journals be based on small subject groups that represent the main and real subject area of ​​the journal??