This study intends to review and discuss some topics around CiteScore (here abbreviated as CS) which is a new citation impact indicator of Scopus. Qualitative analysis of journals based on scientometric indicators has been usual and is a good way of rapid evaluation of them. Here, we use them to reach a conclusion. We believe that reliability of CiteScore-based quartile is more and this index is preferred because in comparison to IF-based quartile, there are some reasons of preference of CS. In addition, CS can provide a more natural perception on citations compared to SJR-based quartile computation. The result of this study can be considered as a proof that both types of SJR- and CiteScore-based quartiles should not be assumed as baseline of quality evaluations at the same time.

This short paper presents a case report on detecting hijacked journals. Towards identification of a fake journal website and preventing a hijacked paper, we can use different tools including Google Scholar (an altmetric tool), Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus (both as scientometric databases) to distinguish a fake website from a legal journal website. Our evaluation shows that analysis of a doubtful website for a targeted journal based on Google Scholar is not reliable. In fact, the use of scientometric tools for tracking prior publications of the targeted journal is compulsory. Another result of this case study is that in some uncommon cases, fake websites may sometimes convince a scientometric database in order to be partially indexed along with an abstracting of their hijacked papers while these websites steal identity of the legal journals. Therefore as a results, we should check both of WoS and Scopus for verifying a fake website at the same time to obtain more reliability.