Contact

Scientific Journal Authority serves researchers, authors, librarians, and anyone working through the maze of peer review, journal selection, and publication metrics. This page explains how to reach the editorial team, what geographic scope the site covers, how to structure a useful message, and what kind of response timeline is realistic.

How to reach this office

The primary contact channel for Scientific Journal Authority is email. A contact form is available on this domain and routes directly to the editorial inbox — no intermediary ticketing system, no automated deflection to a FAQ wall. Messages submitted through the form are received by the same people who research and maintain the content here.

For questions about specific pages — a metric that seems outdated, a journal that has changed publishers, a retraction that hasn't been reflected in the retractions and corrections coverage — the contact form is the right tool. For general inquiries about peer review, predatory journals, or open access mandates, the site's reference pages are designed to answer those directly without requiring a message.

There is no phone line, no live chat, and no social media account actively monitored for support requests. Email-first contact keeps responses substantive rather than reactive.

Service area covered

Scientific Journal Authority operates with national scope across the United States. The reference content is written with US-based researchers, institutions, and funding bodies in mind — including coverage of federal open access requirements, US-based journal publishers, and domestic library access systems like interlibrary loan.

That said, the underlying subject matter — impact factor, the h-index, article processing charges, preprint servers — is international by nature. Researchers outside the US will find the reference content fully applicable; the service boundary applies to editorial focus and institutional context, not to readership eligibility.

The site does not represent any journal publisher, indexing database, or academic institution. It is an independent reference property. Requests for publisher relations, journal submissions, or manuscript peer review fall outside the scope of what this office handles.

What to include in your message

A well-structured message gets a faster, more useful response. Vague messages take longer to triage — not because they're unwelcome, but because clarifying back-and-forth adds time on both ends.

A useful message includes:

1. The specific page or topic in question. A URL is ideal. "The page about Scimago" is workable. "Something about journal rankings" requires a follow-up.
2. The nature of the issue or question. Is the information factually incorrect? Has a named source changed its methodology? Is a definition incomplete? Is a journal's status outdated?
3. A named source if available. If there's a public document, database entry, or official publisher notice that supports the correction, include it. Editorial updates prioritize claims backed by verifiable public sources — the same standard applied to the original content.
4. Contact information for a reply. The form captures an email address, but a name (even a first name) helps keep the exchange human.

Two types of messages that don't require any of the above: general appreciation and general criticism. Both are read. Neither requires structured detail — though specific feedback is always more useful than a broad impression.

Response expectations

The editorial team reviews the contact inbox on a regular basis, with a target first-response window of 3 to 5 business days for substantive inquiries. Simple acknowledgments may arrive sooner. Inquiries that require editorial review — a proposed factual correction, a request to update source citations, a question about a complex topic like copyright and licensing — may take longer, particularly if external verification is needed.

A few distinctions worth drawing:

Editorial corrections vs. general questions. A question about how DOIs work can often be answered with a pointer to the existing reference page. A claim that a specific statistic on that page is wrong requires editorial review before any response commits to a correction. The latter takes more time and gets more scrutiny — which is the appropriate trade-off.

Urgent vs. non-urgent. There is no expedited queue. If a time-sensitive research decision depends on information from this site, the how to get help page is a better starting point than a contact message, since it surfaces the most directly actionable reference content without waiting for a reply.

Corrections that get published vs. corrections that don't. Not every flagged issue results in a page update. If a named source has changed its methodology and the original page is now technically accurate to the prior version, the page may be updated with a clarifying note rather than a full revision. If a correction cannot be verified through a public source, it may not be incorporated — not as a judgment on the person raising it, but because the editorial standard requires traceable sourcing throughout.

Messages are not shared, sold, or used for marketing purposes. The inbox exists for one purpose: maintaining the accuracy and usefulness of the reference content on this site.