What's Going On with DOAJ

Our journals are open access. They have always been open access. They are listed in Scopus, Web of Science, and other indexing organizations. And they were listed in DOAJ since its inception. Then something changed at DOAJ.

We can only speculate what has changed at DOAJ. Is it perhaps when profit-oriented journals that charge authors over $ 1,000 to make their articles available as open access came onto the scene? Regardless of the reason, DOAJ has changed.

DOAJ began revising its inclusion criteria. Still, our journals met those new criteria. DOAJ editors from other fields of study removed us, writing that we do not meet the new criteria. We thoroughly reviewed the new criteria and reapplied to one of the journals several times. Yet each time, DOAJ rejected our reapplication for reasons not listed in its inclusion criteria. You can see a few of those reasons below.

Following each denial, we appealed the decision and requested clarification. Each time, DOAJ failed to respond. 

Here are some of the reasons given for denial:

• “Shared board members with other journals from this publisher in non-related areas”. We asked what was meant by non-related areas and received no response. Our Board includes the editors of several of the journals that ISI publishes, so it makes sense that they have different areas of interest.
•  “Editorial board members and reviewers linked to questionable publishers”. We asked for a list of “questionable publishers” or guidance on how to determine them. This is not listed as a DOAJ criterion. Once again, DOAJ failed to respond to our appeal. One of ISI's goals is to mentor reviewers on how to improve. This means we initially accept some colleagues whom DOAJ may consider unacceptable. We give all colleagues the opportunity to develop and drop those who choose not to.  
• All of our editors and peer reviewers are volunteers. They come from universities around the world.  None of our editors are peer reviewers for their own journal. Yet, DOAJ rejected our reapplication, writing, “It appears that editors can also act as reviewers. Best practice is that independent reviewers should be used.” All our reviewers are independent.
• Here is another false statement DOAJ used: “Lack of editorial independence - the publisher is involved in editorial decisions.” Our publisher receives articles only after the paper has completed the editorial process and been accepted.

What is going on at DOAJ?  After several years of trying, it seemed useless to consider them credible.