As mentioned here, ReScience is not indexed by Scopus (nor by anyone else): #82 (comment)

I recently stumbled over https://www.readyforscopus.com/ and thought it might be a good idea to put down the points it mentions for a scopus pre-evaluation in an issue here. ReScience is great and in the long term it would be awesome to have it indexed. Thus, some tracking can't hurt.

• (1) The Journal has a minimum of 2-year publication history
• (2) Journal has a unique title, not identical to one we already index in Scopus
• (3) The journal is peer-reviewed
• (4) Abstracts, titles, and keywords are in English; authors – in Roman script
• (5) References are presented in Roman script
• (6) Journal is published regularly and per publishing schedule, which available at the journal’s website [Note: This could be easier than it looks: "The journal should have a set date of publication that must be respected. One relatively easy solution is to have the journal publish manuscripts as soon as they are accepted just like major publishers. " (src)]
• (7) Ethics and malpractice statement is available in English at journal’s website
• (7.1) Editor and Editorial Board (has editor & board, full names, affiliations and roles, and editorial office contact info on website). (paraphrazed, see original on https://www.readyforscopus.com/)
• (7.2) Fees are declared and author policies (all authors contributed, are obliged to provide corrections, provide references, disclose financial support, no same publication in another journal) (paraphrased, see original on https://www.readyforscopus.com/)
• (7.3) Peer review (type of review, objective, advice from experts, no conflicts of interest, treated confidentially (?) (paraphrazed, see original on https://www.readyforscopus.com/)
• (7.4) Publication ethics presented on the website (steps to prevent misconduct, not encourage misconduct, deal with allegations appropriately, guidelines for retraction, editors are willing to publish corrections) (paraphrased, see original on https://www.readyforscopus.com/)
• (7.5) Copyright and licensing information is clearly described on the journal’s web site
• (7.6) Subscription fees or pay-per-view fees are clearly stated on the journal’s website
• (7.7) A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content in the event a journal is no longer published (access to archive) is clearly indicated at the journal’s website.
• (7.8) Information about the ownership and/or management of a journal is clearly indicated on the journal’s website
• (8) Journal has ISSN and/or e-ISSN/ISSN-L, confirmed by international ISSN Center
• (9) Journal has dedicated website in English
• (10) Author instructions (guide for authors) are available in English at journal’s website
• (11) Aims and Scope are available in English and presented at journal’s website
• (12.1) Geographical diversity of Editors is according to claimed journal’s aim and scope
• (12.2) Geographical diversity of Authors is according to claimed journal’s aim and scope
• (13) Journal’s documents are cited by Scopus sources (there's an option for 'don't know')
• (14) Journal’s Editors are experts in the subject area covered by the journal
• (15) Journal has DOI
• (16.1) The journal consistently publishes articles that are scientifically sound and relevant to an international academic or professional audience in this field
• (16.2) The content of the articles is consistent with the stated scope and aims of the journal and consistently of high academic quality
• (16.3) Tables and figures in articles are clear and well configured within article content
• (16.4) The language and grammar of articles are good. The content of the articles is logically structured, easily readable, and understandable
• (16.5) The abstracts are clear, easily readable and provide an excellent comprehensive summary of the article of sufficient length

Clearly, not all points will be easily implementable and others are downright impossible for us (e.g. 7.3 - confidential treatment). For other points, this may help as additional consideration, for example in this discussion about the ability to change anything, which is requested by point 7.4 above.

Note: I am relatively new to ReScience (but love it!) and am not a Scopus expert either; thus I may have missed something. If you consider this issue as not use-/ or helpful, please don't hesitate to close it :-)

Also, I am not sure if https://www.readyforscopus.com/ is really and officially maintained by Scopus and I am not sure if these are recommended or required points to be considered for indexing.