The Fall of a Mega-Journal: Why Science of the Total Environment Was Removed from Web of Science
Executive Summary
On November 18, 2025, Clarivate officially removed the Elsevier journal Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN) from the Web of Science Core Collection. This decision follows a year-long “On Hold” status initiated in October 2024 due to significant quality concerns.
The delisting serves as a watershed moment for academic publishing, exposing the friction between scientific integrity and the “mega-journal” business model.
Introduction
In late 2020, as the world grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic, Science of the Total Environment published a study suggesting that jade amulets could prevent coronavirus infection. While the scientific community dismissed the claim as pseudoscience, the article remained a permanent stain on the journal’s reputation.
Five years later, that warning has materialized into a severe penalty. Clarivate has expelled the journal from its index. For the thousands of researchers who paid thousands of dollars to publish in STOTEN hoping for citation impact, the delisting is a professional catastrophe.
Key Takeaway: Why Was It Delisted?
Science of the Total Environment was removed because it failed to meet Clarivate’s quality criteria. The volume of publication had outpaced the journal’s ability to vet research, leading to the acceptance of “irregular” articles and fraudulent peer reviews.
The Rise of the “Mega-Journal” Model
To understand the collapse, one must look at the economics. STOTEN transformed from a niche publication into a “mega-journal”—a venue where high acceptance volumes drive revenue.
The Financial Incentives
Elsevier reported a 38% profit margin in 2024. Since authors pay Article Processing Charges (APCs) of $4,150 per paper, the publisher has a financial incentive to accept as many papers as possible.
Data: The Volume Explosion
Under the editorship of Damià Barceló (2012–2025), the journal’s output skyrocketed:
| Year | Annual Articles | Growth Phase |
|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 1,000 | Initial Appointment |
| 2014 | 2,000 | Rapid Expansion |
| 2017 | 2,748 | Steady Growth |
| 2024 | 10,441 | Peak Volume |
Analysis: The Systemic Failures
The investigation reveals three primary pillars of misconduct that led to the delisting.
1. The “Hyper-Prolific” Editor
Damià Barceló, the Editor-in-Chief until March 2025, has authored over 1,800 papers, with more than 200 appearing in STOTEN. Such high volumes in one’s own journal suggest a bypass of rigorous, independent peer review.
2. The Peer Review Ring
The publisher retracted roughly 50 studies linked to Brazilian biologist Guilherme Malafaia after uncovering “fake peer reviews.”
3. Bibliometric Gaming & Authorship Bias
Independent analyses revealed statistical anomalies regarding the geographic origin of accepted papers, indicating potential “citation cartels” or preferential treatment.
Critical Discussion: The Cost of “Publish or Perish”
The expulsion of STOTEN exposes the darker side of the academic economy. Research is largely funded by taxpayers, yet public money pays for the research and the $4,150 APCs. When a journal is delisted, the “product” (prestige) that the public paid for is retroactively devalued.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is my paper still indexed in Web of Science?
If published after Volume 954 (2024), it is likely not indexed.
Does the journal still have an Impact Factor?
No, it will not receive a JCR Impact Factor for the upcoming year.