| name | explore-reputation |
| description | Profiles a journal's reputation, impact factor, indexing status, editorial board, acceptance rates, and predatory status. Used by the reputation-explorer agent.
|
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | opencode |
| metadata | {"audience":"reputation-explorer","phase":"exploration","category":"reputation"} |
Goal
Profile the reputation, impact, and standing of an academic journal or conference.
Search Strategy
- Search for
"<journal name> impact factor"
- Search for
"<journal name> Scopus" or "<journal name> Web of Science"
- Search for
"<journal name> acceptance rate"
- Search for
"<journal name> predatory" or check Beall's list
- Search for
"<journal name> editorial board"
- Fetch the journal's official page for metrics
- Check SCImago (scimagojr.com) for ranking data
Information to Extract
Impact & Metrics
- Journal Impact Factor (JIF) — most recent year
- CiteScore (if available)
- h-index
- SCImago quartile ranking (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)
- Eigenfactor or other influence metrics
Indexing Status
Check and document whether the journal is indexed in:
- Scopus
- Web of Science (SCI, SSCI, AHCI)
- ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index)
- PubMed / MEDLINE
- Engineering Index / Compendex
- Other relevant databases
Editorial Board
- Editor-in-Chief: name, affiliation, reputation
- Key associate editors
- Notable advisory board members
- Geographic distribution of editorial board
Publisher
- Publisher name and reputation
- Open access model (Gold OA, hybrid, subscription)
- APC (Article Processing Charge) if applicable
- Publisher policies on self-archiving
Acceptance & Review
- Estimated acceptance rate (if publicly available)
- Review model (single-blind, double-blind, open peer review)
- Typical turnaround time from submission to first decision
- Number of reviewers typically assigned
Predatory Status
- Is it on Beall's list or other predatory watchlists?
- Are there red flags (fake editorial boards, no proper peer review, etc.)?
- Overall predatory assessment: Safe / Caution / Avoid
Field Standing
- How is the journal perceived by researchers in its domain?
- Comparison to similar journals in the same field
- Notable papers published in recent years
Quality Checks
- Only cite verified metrics from official sources
- Note when information is estimated or from informal sources
- Be honest about predatory indicators — don't gloss over red flags
- If the journal is a conference, adjust the assessment framework accordingly
Output Location
Save to context/<journal-slug>/reputation-profile.md (cache)
AND <report-directory>/04-reputation-profile.md (session artifact)
