Evaluation and Program Planning: Scopus, Scope, Metrics & Submission Guide
Evaluation and Program Planning is an interdisciplinary Elsevier journal focused on the theory and practice of evaluation and planning across public, private, health, education, organizational, social-service, policy, and related settings. Its official description emphasizes that evaluation and planning methods cross disciplinary boundaries, and the journal welcomes work intended to improve the knowledge and practice of evaluators and planners.
For researchers deciding whether to submit, the most important feature is not simply that the journal is indexed or has current citation metrics. The manuscript must contribute meaningfully to evaluation or planning. Reports of specific evaluations are expected to explain the setting, design, analysis, results, and practical lessons learned; broader contributions can address evaluation theory, literature, instruments, methods, or fiscal, legislative, legal, and ethical issues affecting evaluation and planning.
This profile combines verified journal facts with practical publication-readiness guidance. Metrics, fees, editorial roles, indexing records, and author instructions can change, so authors should reconfirm time-sensitive information on the official journal pages immediately before submission.
Quick Answer: What Is Evaluation and Program Planning?
Evaluation and Program Planning is a peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier. It publishes interdisciplinary work on the conduct and use of evaluation and planning, including empirical evaluation reports and broader discussions of issues that matter to evaluators and planners. The journal has been published since 1978, appears six times per year, and uses the standard abbreviation Eval Program Plann in the U.S. National Library of Medicine catalog.
The journal is represented in Scopus under Source ID 26602. Its print ISSN is 0149-7189 and electronic ISSN is 1873-7870. NLM records also show current MEDLINE indexing. Elsevier's current journal pages display a CiteScore of 4.1 and Impact Factor of 1.9.
Researchers should consider the journal when their paper contributes directly to evaluation or planning practice, theory, methodology, utilization, implementation, program design, or related decision-making. A manuscript that merely evaluates an intervention but does not draw useful evaluation or planning lessons may need stronger framing to fit the journal's stated purpose.
Key Takeaways for Prospective Authors
- Publisher: Elsevier; the journal is hosted on ScienceDirect.
- Scopus: supplied and verified journal identity uses Scopus Source ID 26602.
- Identifiers: ISSN 0149-7189; EISSN 1873-7870.
- Current Elsevier metrics: CiteScore 4.1 and Impact Factor 1.9; always check the reporting page for the latest cycle.
- Peer review: Elsevier's guide states that the journal follows double-anonymized peer review.
- Article focus: specific evaluation/planning reports and broader articles on issues relevant to evaluation and planning; special issues and book reviews are also part of the journal's publishing model.
- Open access: the journal supports open access. Elsevier currently lists an APC of USD 3,480 excluding taxes for the open-access route; subscription publication is also available.
- Fit signal: evaluation reports should communicate practical lessons that other evaluators can use, not only study results.
Evaluation and Program Planning at a Glance
| Field | Journal information |
|---|---|
| Journal name | Evaluation and Program Planning |
| Standard abbreviation | Eval Program Plann |
| Publisher | Elsevier (Elsevier Ltd. on current article copyright notices) |
| ISSN / EISSN | 0149-7189 / 1873-7870 |
| Scopus Source ID | 26602 |
| Publication start | 1978 |
| Frequency | Six issues per year |
| Language | English |
| Country in NLM record | England |
| Scopus status | Current Scopus source profile supplied for Source ID 26602; verify live status before institutional reporting |
| MEDLINE / PubMed | NLM states the journal is currently indexed for MEDLINE; PubMed coverage includes 1978–1989 and 2007 onward |
| CiteScore | 4.1 on Elsevier journal pages checked 10 August 2026 |
| Impact Factor | 1.9 on Elsevier journal pages checked 10 August 2026 |
| SJR / quartile | SCImago currently displays SJR 0.549 and Q2 for 2025; category-specific quartiles should be checked in the database used by your institution |
| SNIP | Verify current value in the latest Scopus/Elsevier source record; not stated here without a directly verified current official value |
| Open access | Hybrid/supports open access |
| Current open-access APC | USD 3,480 excluding taxes on current Elsevier journal page; discounts or reductions may apply |
| Peer review | Double-anonymized |
| Official journal site | ScienceDirect journal page |
| Guide for authors | Official author guide |
| Scopus profile | Scopus Source ID 26602 |
What This Page Covers
- Aims, scope, and subject areas
- Scopus and MEDLINE indexing
- Current journal metrics and quartile context
- Article types and journal-fit considerations
- Manuscript preparation and required highlights
- Double-anonymized peer review and submission workflow
- Open-access options and publication charges
- Publication ethics and responsible AI use
- Practical fit scenarios and a pre-submission checklist
- Ethical Contentxprtz support for publication readiness
Table of Contents
Methodology and Sources Used for This Journal Profile
This guide prioritizes the official Elsevier/ScienceDirect journal pages and author instructions, the supplied Scopus Source ID, the U.S. National Library of Medicine catalog, and Clarivate journal-list evidence. SCImago is used only to contextualize the current SJR and quartile where a directly accessible current Scopus metric page is not available in this research session.
Time-sensitive values are date-stamped or clearly labeled for reverification. The article does not estimate acceptance rate, does not invent review durations, and does not present generic scholarly advice as an official journal requirement.
Aims and Scope: What the Journal Is Trying to Publish
Elsevier describes Evaluation and Program Planning as a journal built on the idea that evaluation and planning techniques can cross the boundaries of individual fields. This is central to understanding fit. The journal is not restricted to one sector, population, or methodology; it is interested in knowledge that helps evaluators and planners improve professional practice, skills, and their knowledge base.
The official scope specifically refers to work from private and public sectors and names organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental wellbeing, social services, corrections, substance abuse, and education. These areas illustrate the journal's interdisciplinary reach rather than forming a closed topic list.
Two core manuscript directions
The publisher's description distinguishes two broad forms of article. First are reports on specific evaluation or planning efforts. These should explain the evaluation setting, design, analysis, and results, and the journal particularly asks such authors to include practical lessons learned. Second are broader discussions of matters relevant to evaluation or planning. Examples in the official description include evaluation theory, literature reviews, critiques of instruments, and fiscal, legislative, legal, or ethical issues.
Subjects and Research Themes That May Fit
Based on the journal's stated scope, potentially relevant manuscripts can span many applied settings. The following are examples of research directions consistent with that scope; they are not an official exhaustive list:
Recent special collections also show continuing interest in topics such as theory-driven evaluation, sustainability assessment and impact investing, economic evaluation, societal impact, health equity, evaluator education, and digital public administration. Authors should review the latest issues to see how their particular method and topic are currently represented.
Scopus and Other Indexing Information
The supplied journal record identifies Evaluation and Program Planning as Scopus Source ID 26602, with the source profile at Scopus. Researchers who need Scopus indexing for degree, promotion, funding, or institutional compliance should open that live record and confirm current coverage at the time they submit or report the publication.
The U.S. National Library of Medicine catalog identifies the journal by both ISSNs and states that it is currently indexed for MEDLINE. The record indicates MEDLINE coverage for volume 1, issue 1 through volume 12, issue 4 (1978–1989) and again from volume 30, issue 1 (2007 onward). PubMed coverage is recorded over the same periods.
Clarivate's journal title list includes Evaluation and Program Planning with ISSN 0149-7189 and EISSN 1873-7870. Because detailed Web of Science collection and Journal Citation Reports status can change, researchers who specifically need SSCI/JCR recognition should verify the live Master Journal List or JCR record rather than relying only on third-party directories.
Current Metrics and How to Interpret the Quartile
Elsevier's current journal interface displays CiteScore 4.1 and Impact Factor 1.9. SCImago's current 2025 profile shows SJR 0.549 and Q2. These metrics describe different things and should not be treated as interchangeable. CiteScore and the Journal Impact Factor use different databases, windows, and calculation rules, while SJR weights citations according to the citing source's influence.
A journal can also occupy different positions in different subject categories. Therefore, the question “Is Evaluation and Program Planning Q1 or Q2?” should always be answered with a source, year, and category. The current SCImago profile is Q2 for 2025, but an institution may use Scopus CiteScore quartiles or JCR category quartiles instead. Confirm the exact framework your university or funder recognizes.
Article Types and Publishing Formats
The official Elsevier description states that the journal publishes articles, special issues (often as a section of an issue), and book reviews. Its ordinary articles broadly include reports of individual evaluation or planning efforts and general articles addressing matters relevant to evaluation and planning.
For evaluation reports, the journal's distinctive expectation is the practical lessons learned component: authors should explain what they would do differently and what methodological, implementation, utilization, or other advice could help other evaluators. General articles can include theoretical discussions, reviews of literature, critiques of instruments, and consideration of financial, legislative, legal, or ethical issues.
Special issues are organized around a focused topic and involve guest editors. Book reviews may address areas of social science or public policy relevant to evaluators and planners. Authors should use the live Guide for Authors and submission interface to confirm the article category that best matches their paper.
Who Should Consider Submitting?
The journal may be relevant to evaluators, program planners, implementation researchers, public-health and health-services researchers, education researchers, social scientists, organizational researchers, policy analysts, evaluation methodologists, and practitioners who generate transferable evaluation knowledge.
Academic status by itself is not a fit criterion. A PhD scholar, professor, practitioner, or interdisciplinary team should ask whether the paper advances evaluation/planning knowledge and speaks to the journal's reader community.
Journal-fit checklist
- My central question is clearly connected to evaluation or planning.
- The manuscript offers transferable learning rather than only local program results.
- The study design and analysis are explained well enough for evaluators to assess the evidence.
- For an evaluation report, I can articulate meaningful “lessons learned.”
- The topic resembles work currently appearing in recent issues or special collections.
- The manuscript type is supported by the current author guide.
- The intended audience includes evaluators, planners, program leaders, or related researchers.
- I have checked current indexing and metric requirements required by my institution.
- I understand the journal's subscription/open-access choices and potential APC.
- I can meet the latest submission, ethics, data, and disclosure requirements.
Manuscript Preparation Requirements
Elsevier's live Guide for Authors should be treated as the final authority for file preparation. The journal currently requires article highlights. Elsevier specifies 3 to 5 bullet points, with each highlight limited to a maximum of 85 characters including spaces. Highlights should capture the main findings or methodological contribution in a way that improves discoverability.
The guide also provides current requirements for title-page information, abstract and keywords, tables, figures, supplementary material, declarations, data statements, references, and electronic files. Authors should avoid copying formatting instructions from old PDFs or third-party journal templates because publisher requirements can change.
Strengthening a journal-aligned evaluation report
- Define the program and evaluation context. Explain what is being evaluated, why, for whom, and under what operational conditions.
- Make the evaluation question explicit. Readers should understand the decision, learning, accountability, improvement, or planning purpose.
- Explain the evaluation design. Describe data sources, sampling, measures, analytic choices, limitations, and relevant implementation context.
- Connect findings to evaluation practice. Move beyond reporting outcome numbers to interpret what the evaluation teaches.
- Write a useful lessons-learned section. Identify what could be done differently and what another evaluator should know before applying the approach elsewhere.
- Check reporting standards. Where applicable, use recognized reporting guidelines for study design, qualitative work, trials, reviews, economic evaluations, or implementation research.
The steps above combine the journal's stated expectation for evaluation reports with general publication-readiness practice. Not every item is a separate formal requirement of the journal.
Submission and Double-Anonymized Peer Review
The official author guide states that Evaluation and Program Planning follows a double-anonymized peer-review process: author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors. Authors should therefore follow the journal's current instructions for separating identifying material from the anonymized manuscript.
A practical submission workflow is: verify scope and article type; prepare the manuscript and required submission files; remove identifying information from the anonymized review file; upload through the journal's online submission system; complete author, funding, conflict, data, and ethics declarations; and submit for editorial assessment.
After submission, a manuscript may undergo technical checks and editorial screening before external review. Reviewers may recommend revisions, and the editor makes the publication decision. If accepted, the manuscript enters production and proofing. The journal does not appear to publish a reliable official acceptance rate in the authoritative sources checked for this guide, so no acceptance percentage is stated here. Likewise, an official average review duration was not verified and should not be estimated from unofficial sources.
Responding to reviewer comments
For revisions, prepare a point-by-point response that reproduces each substantive reviewer comment, states what changed, identifies the relevant manuscript location, and respectfully explains any reasoned disagreement. Ensure that the revised manuscript and response letter are consistent.
Open Access, APCs, and Publication Fees
Evaluation and Program Planning is a hybrid journal that supports open access. Authors can publish through the subscription route or, when eligible and desired, select an open-access option. Elsevier's current journal page lists an open-access article publishing charge of USD 3,480 excluding taxes. It also notes that the amount may be reduced during submission when an applicable agreement, discount, or funding arrangement applies.
Because fees are time-sensitive and can differ by agreement, country, institution, license, and tax treatment, authors should confirm the amount immediately before making a funding decision. An APC is normally associated with choosing the open-access publishing route after acceptance; it should not be confused with an acceptance guarantee or a fee for favorable peer review.
Publication Ethics, Authorship, Data, and Generative AI
Authors should follow the journal's current Elsevier ethics and author policies on originality, duplicate submission, authorship, competing interests, data integrity, corrections, retractions, research involving humans or animals where applicable, and proper attribution. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated evidence, inappropriate authorship, or undisclosed duplicate publication can create serious research-integrity concerns.
Elsevier also maintains publisher-level policies for the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies. These policies can be updated, so authors should consult the live Guide for Authors and Elsevier's publishing-ethics pages before submission. AI tools cannot take authorship responsibility; authors remain accountable for accuracy, originality, citations, confidential information, and all content submitted under their names.
For researchers using language tools, the safest publication-readiness practice is to maintain a verifiable source trail, check every factual and bibliographic claim, preserve confidential data, and disclose AI assistance whenever current publisher policy requires it.
Practical Journal-Fit Examples
Strong scope match: public-health program evaluation
A team evaluates a multi-site prevention program, explains its theory of change, implementation conditions, outcome and process measures, analytic limitations, and lessons about stakeholder engagement. This is naturally aligned because the paper contributes both evidence and evaluation-practice learning.
Potential match that needs reframing: organizational training study
A researcher tests whether a training course improves employee scores. If the paper reads only as an HR outcome study, fit may be limited. It becomes more relevant when it clearly addresses evaluation design, program implementation, utilization, and lessons for planning or evaluating workforce-development programs.
Weak match: discipline-specific laboratory experiment
A laboratory study with no program, policy, service, planning, implementation, or evaluation dimension is unlikely to fit simply because it measures outcomes. A specialist disciplinary journal would usually serve the audience better.
Good study, poor submission readiness
An evaluation report fits the scope but includes author identities in the review manuscript, omits required highlights, uses inconsistent references, and does not articulate lessons learned. These issues should be corrected before submission because they can delay screening or weaken editorial presentation.
ESL manuscript with sound evidence
If the design and findings are strong but sentence structure obscures the evaluation logic, academic language editing can improve readability without changing the research contribution. Editing does not guarantee acceptance; it helps the manuscript communicate its evidence more clearly.
Pre-Submission Checklist for Evaluation and Program Planning
- Re-open the current aims and scope and Guide for Authors.
- Confirm Scopus or Web of Science status required by your institution.
- Select the correct article type in the live submission system.
- Make evaluation/planning contribution explicit in the title, abstract, and introduction.
- For an evaluation report, include context, design, analysis, results, and useful lessons learned.
- Prepare 3–5 required highlights, each within the current 85-character limit.
- Follow double-anonymized review preparation instructions.
- Check abstract, keywords, tables, figures, supplementary files, and reference formatting.
- Verify all citations, DOIs, and data statements.
- Include ethics approval and consent information where applicable.
- Confirm funding, conflicts of interest, authorship, and contributor statements.
- Review current generative-AI disclosure requirements if AI-assisted tools were used.
- Confirm the open-access route and current APC only if you intend to publish open access.
- Ensure all authors have approved the final submission and author order.
- Proofread the anonymized manuscript and all submission metadata before clicking submit.
How Contentxprtz Can Support Publication Readiness
For a manuscript intended for Evaluation and Program Planning, ethical publication support can focus on whether the paper communicates its evaluation contribution clearly and follows the current journal requirements. Contentxprtz may assist with manuscript assessment, academic editing, ESL language polishing, abstract and title refinement, journal formatting, reference consistency, table and figure language, cover-letter editing, and reviewer-response editing.
Support can also help an author test scope alignment: Is the evaluation purpose clear? Are the design and limitations transparent? Does the manuscript provide transferable lessons for evaluators or planners? Are claims supported by authentic sources? Does the submission package comply with double-anonymized review instructions?
Contentxprtz cannot guarantee acceptance, publication, peer-review success, indexing, citations, or a particular editorial outcome. Editorial decisions remain entirely with the journal, and authors remain responsible for their research, data, analysis, originality, ethical compliance, citations, and final submission.
Preparing a manuscript for Evaluation and Program Planning?
Contentxprtz can help review journal alignment, academic language, manuscript structure, formatting, references, and submission readiness while preserving author responsibility and research integrity.
Explore journal publication supportAuthoritative Sources and Verification Links
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Evaluation and Program Planning?
It is an interdisciplinary Elsevier journal focused on evaluation and planning theory, practice, methods, program studies, and issues relevant to evaluators and planners across public and private sectors.
Who publishes Evaluation and Program Planning?
Elsevier publishes the journal and hosts its current journal, author-guidance, open-access, editorial-board, and article pages on ScienceDirect.
Is Evaluation and Program Planning indexed in Scopus?
Yes. The supplied and verified journal identity uses Scopus Source ID 26602. Authors with institutional indexing requirements should still confirm the live Scopus source record at the time of submission or reporting.
What are the ISSN and EISSN?
The print ISSN is 0149-7189 and the electronic ISSN is 1873-7870, as recorded by NLM and Elsevier.
Is the journal indexed in MEDLINE?
Yes. The NLM Catalog currently states that Evaluation and Program Planning is indexed for MEDLINE, with coverage from 1978–1989 and again from 2007 onward.
What is the current CiteScore?
Elsevier's current journal pages checked on 10 August 2026 display a CiteScore of 4.1. Citation metrics can change between reporting cycles.
What is the current Impact Factor?
Elsevier's current journal pages checked on 10 August 2026 display an Impact Factor of 1.9. Researchers should verify the relevant JCR reporting year if their institution requires a specific year.
Is Evaluation and Program Planning Q1 or Q2?
SCImago currently shows Q2 for 2025, with SJR 0.549. Quartile depends on the database, year, and subject category, so verify the exact ranking system your institution uses.
What types of articles does the journal publish?
The official description identifies reports of specific evaluation or planning efforts and broader articles about evaluation/planning issues. It also publishes special issues and book reviews.
Does the journal use double-anonymized peer review?
Yes. The current Guide for Authors states that author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other.
Are article highlights required?
Yes. The current author guide requires 3 to 5 highlights, with each bullet limited to a maximum of 85 characters including spaces.
Is Evaluation and Program Planning open access?
It is a hybrid journal that supports open access. Authors may use the subscription route or select an open-access option when appropriate.
What is the article processing charge?
The current Elsevier journal page lists an open-access APC of USD 3,480 excluding taxes. Applicable institutional agreements, discounts, or reductions may change the amount, so authors should confirm it at submission.
What is the acceptance rate?
An official acceptance rate was not verified in the authoritative sources used for this guide. Contentxprtz does not estimate acceptance rates from unofficial websites.
How long does peer review take?
An official average peer-review duration was not verified for this article. Actual timing can depend on editorial screening, reviewer availability, revision cycles, manuscript complexity, and production scheduling.
Is the journal suitable for PhD researchers?
It can be suitable when the manuscript fits the journal's evaluation/planning scope and meets the research-quality and institutional requirements relevant to the PhD program. Scopus indexing alone does not make a journal automatically suitable for every doctoral researcher.
How can I tell whether my manuscript fits?
Compare the central research question, evaluation or planning contribution, article type, methodology, audience, and lessons learned with the journal's current aims and recent publications. If evaluation is only incidental to the study, another journal may be a stronger fit.
Can Contentxprtz guarantee acceptance?
No. Contentxprtz can support ethical manuscript preparation, editing, formatting, references, and publication readiness, but it cannot guarantee acceptance, peer-review outcomes, indexing, citations, or publication.
Final Journal-Selection Perspective
Evaluation and Program Planning is most compelling for authors whose work does more than report whether a program “worked.” The journal's stated purpose favors contributions that help the evaluation and planning community understand how programs were assessed, what methodological or implementation choices mattered, how findings can inform action, and what other evaluators can learn.
Before submission, check the live aims and scope, recent issues, Scopus or Web of Science status required by your institution, current metrics, author instructions, double-anonymized review requirements, and open-access costs. Then judge fit based on audience and contribution rather than metric alone. A carefully aligned manuscript has a better editorial rationale, but no preparation service or indexing status can guarantee acceptance.
