J-MECS: A Framework for Journal Selection and Ethics Alignment Across TR-Dizin, Web of Science, and Scopus

Background and Aim: Bibliographic databases such as TR-Dizin, Web of Science, and Scopus play a significant role in the visibility, evaluation, and dissemination of scientific knowledge. These databases are vital resources for orthopedic and trauma research and are closely tied to academic publishing practices. This study aims to evaluate the journal selection criteria, ethical frameworks, and indexing overlaps among these databases and to propose a structured evaluation approach, the Journal Manuscript Evaluation and Compliance System (J-MECS), to support informed journal selection.

Materials and Methods: We analyzed 22,938 journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), 31,539 in Scopus, and 1,743 in TR-Dizin. Records were filtered using ISSN and e-ISSN identifiers, followed by duplicate screening and descriptive statistical analysis to quantify cross-database overlap and national coverage. Turkish journals were further cross-referenced with the membership directory of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Additionally, editorial policies, peer review requirements, citation-based indicators, indexing procedures, and transparency criteria were systematically compared. Based on these findings, we developed J-MECS.

Results: In the TR-Dizin corpus, 373 journals (21.4%) were indexed in at least one of the international databases, including 155 journals simultaneously indexed in WoS and Scopus. Among Turkey-based titles, 253 of 277 journals indexed in WoS (91.3%) and 112 of 334 journals indexed in Scopus (33.5%) were also included in TR-Dizin, indicating asymmetric cross-database integration. Of the 43 Turkey-based COPE member journals, only eight were indexed in TR-Dizin, suggesting limited alignment between national indexing and formalized ethics affiliation.

Conclusion: The findings demonstrate systematic differences in coverage, selectivity, and ethics signaling across databases. The proposed J-MECS framework offers a standardized, metrics-informed approach to enhance cross-database comparability and improve the consistency of scientometric evaluations. For orthopedic surgeons and traumatologists, this approach may facilitate more strategic dissemination of research and enhance compliance with evolving academic publishing requirements.