ECSAC: Scopus Local Content Boards Explained (China, Thailand, Russia, Korea)

ECSAC: Understanding Scopus's Local Content Boards

When a journal is evaluated for potential inclusion in Scopus, most publishers assume the entire process runs through a single, centralized review body. For many journals, that's essentially true - evaluation is handled by the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB), the international group of subject-expert academics responsible for assessing titles submitted for Scopus coverage.

But for journals published in certain regions, there's an additional layer to this process: local content boards, known formally as Expert Content Selection and Advisory Committees (ECSAC). These regional boards work alongside the CSAB to bring localized publishing expertise into the evaluation of journals that serve a specific national or regional research community. This article looks specifically at what ECSAC boards are, why they exist, where they currently operate, and how they fit into the broader Scopus evaluation process.

What Is ECSAC?

ECSAC stands for Expert Content Selection and Advisory Committee - a local, country-specific board established in collaboration between Elsevier and the Scopus CSAB. These committees exist to support the evaluation of journals published primarily for a local audience but that may still be strong candidates for international Scopus coverage.

Currently, ECSAC boards operate in four countries: China, Thailand, Russia, and South Korea. Each board is composed of subject-matter experts based in that country or region, working under the guidance of the central CSAB rather than as an independent or parallel evaluation authority.

Why Local Content Boards Exist

Scopus covers journals from research communities all over the world, published in a wide range of languages and shaped by very different regional academic publishing conventions. A purely centralized review process - however well-run - can face real challenges when evaluating journals rooted in publishing norms, reviewer pools, and institutional practices that differ significantly from the conventions most familiar to a globally dispersed, discipline-focused board.

Local boards exist specifically to close that gap. They bring reviewers who understand the regional publishing landscape directly into the evaluation pipeline, helping ensure that legitimate, high-quality local journals aren't misjudged or overlooked simply because their context differs from what a purely international review process might be most familiar with. This isn't about lowering evaluation standards for local titles - it's about applying the same standards with the added benefit of regional context.

How ECSAC Fits Into the CSAB Evaluation Process

It's important to understand that ECSAC boards don't operate as a separate or parallel approval pathway. When a local board reviews a journal, its recommendations and evaluation comments are passed to the relevant CSAB Subject Chair - the person responsible for that journal's discipline - who then incorporates that input into their own formal review of the title for Scopus coverage.

In practice, this means the local board functions as an additional, contextual input into the same centralized decision-making structure, rather than a separate authority with independent power to approve or reject a journal. The CSAB Subject Chair still makes the final call, informed by both the standard Scopus evaluation criteria and the local board's regional insight.

By default, journals from countries with an established local board are routed through that board first. That said, this isn't an inflexible rule - there are situations where a local journal is instead reviewed directly by the CSAB, such as cases involving a potential conflict of interest at the local board level.

The Core Objectives of Local Boards

Across all four countries, ECSAC boards share the same three underlying objectives.

The first is education: helping local publishers and editors understand Scopus's selection criteria more clearly, so journals in the region are better prepared before formal evaluation begins. Many journals fall short of Scopus criteria not because of genuine quality issues, but because of a lack of clarity about what's actually being assessed - local boards help close that knowledge gap directly within the regional publishing community.

The second is pre-screening: local boards proactively review local titles and act as an initial filter, identifying which journals are genuinely ready for full evaluation versus which need further development before submission makes sense.

The third is full review support: conducting a complete, structured review of local titles with the specific aim of improving the acceptance rate of journals that meet the bar - ensuring strong regional publications aren't held back simply due to gaps in how their strengths are communicated to a purely international review process.

ECSAC-Thailand

Thailand was the first country to establish a local content board, making ECSAC-Thailand something of a model for the approach used in other regions since. The board is composed of 14 Subject Chairs, mirroring the disciplinary structure of the main CSAB, along with 13 additional general board members who support the review process.

Working in close collaboration with the Scopus CSAB, ECSAC-Thailand's core goal is to raise the overall standards and quality of journals published in Thailand - both by supporting individual titles through the evaluation process and by helping build broader publishing capacity within the Thai academic community.

ECSAC-Korea

ECSAC-Korea operates under the same collaborative model, working with the Scopus CSAB to raise the overall standards and quality of journals published in Korea. As with the other local boards, the underlying goal isn't just to help individual journals get indexed, but to strengthen publishing practices across the region more broadly, so more titles are genuinely well-positioned to meet Scopus's evaluation criteria over time.

ECSAC-Russian Federation

The Russian Federation's local board is made up of 14 Subject Chairs, each a subject-matter expert covering one of the major science fields. In close collaboration with the CSAB, these chairs focus specifically on two connected goals: raising the local journal standard within Russia, and improving the international visibility of journals published there - recognizing that quality and visibility often need to be addressed together for regional journals to gain meaningful international recognition.

Scopus China Academic Board

China's local content board takes a slightly different framing in its stated role: it works closely with Elsevier to evaluate and select Chinese journals for submission to the CSAB for formal evaluation. Its objective mirrors the other boards - to raise the overall standard and international visibility of journals published in China - but its role is described specifically in terms of identifying and preparing strong candidate journals for the CSAB review process, reflecting its function as an early-stage evaluation and selection layer within China's publishing landscape.

Why This Structure Matters for Regional Publishers

For journal editors and publishers based in China, Thailand, Russia, or South Korea, understanding the ECSAC structure has direct practical relevance. It means that if your journal is evaluated for Scopus coverage, it's likely to first pass through reviewers who understand your specific regional publishing context - rather than being assessed exclusively by reviewers unfamiliar with local conventions.

It also means there's a structured, education-focused resource available before formal evaluation: local boards are specifically tasked with helping publishers understand Scopus's actual selection criteria, which can meaningfully improve how well-prepared a journal is before it goes through full review. Rather than approaching evaluation as an opaque, one-shot process, regional publishers working with these local boards have the benefit of guidance built specifically around their local publishing environment.

Local Boards Don't Change the Underlying Standard

It's worth being clear about what ECSAC boards are - and aren't. They are not a shortcut to indexing, nor do they operate with different or lower evaluation criteria than the central CSAB. Their role is to apply the same overall Scopus evaluation standards with the benefit of local expertise and context, and to help prepare regional journals to meet those standards more effectively.

Ultimately, the CSAB Subject Chair for each discipline retains responsibility for the formal evaluation decision, incorporating the local board's input as one part of that process. No journal - local or otherwise - is indexed automatically, and inclusion depends on genuinely meeting Scopus's established content selection criteria as assessed by qualified subject-matter reviewers.

Key Takeaways

ECSAC boards represent a deliberate extension of the Scopus CSAB's evaluation model into specific regional publishing contexts, currently active in China, Thailand, Russia, and South Korea. Each board brings local subject-matter expertise into the journal evaluation pipeline, working to educate local publishers, pre-screen candidate titles, and support full reviews that feed directly into the relevant CSAB Subject Chair's final decision.

For publishers in these regions, ECSAC boards offer a more contextually informed evaluation pathway - not an easier one, but one better equipped to recognize genuine quality in journals shaped by regional publishing norms that a purely centralized process might otherwise be less familiar with.