ARCHIVES

The contemporary landscape of academic validation is increasingly mediated by proprietary data-analytics algorithms, most notably Elsevier’s "Scopus Radar." While intended to maintain the integrity of the indexed literature by identifying "outlier behaviour," the application of this algorithm has resulted in an accelerating "purge" of journals, including reputable titles from mainstream publishers. The academic anger has occurred as postgraduate candidates are tied to Scopus-indexed published only to see their work’s metadata being removed from the platform due to no fault of their own following journal de-indexing. This paper examines the systemic disruption caused by the lack of transparency in the ‘Radar’ mechanism - specifically the "black box" nature of its flags and the absence of author notification. Through a socio-technical lens, we analyse the resulting "collateral damage" experienced by early-career researchers, whose graduation and funding are often tied to the volatile status of these indices. The study further explores the global divergence in policy responses, contrasting the rigid state-mandated indexing requirements in Central Asia with the qualitative shift toward the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) in Europe and the deregulation of publication mandates in India and China. This body of work argues that the current reliance on commercial database monopolies represents a loss of institutional sovereignty and advocate for a transition toward human-centric, supervisor-led qualitative assessments of scholarly impact.