Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed – Tragic Loss or Good Riddance?

Version 1 : Received: 22 January 2019 / Approved: 23 January 2019 / Online: 23 January 2019 (10:15:00 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Frantsvåg, J.E. The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? Publications 2019, 7, 45. Frantsvåg, J.E. The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? Publications 2019, 7, 45.

Journal reference: Publications 2019, 7, 45
DOI: 10.3390/publications7030045

Abstract

In December 2012, DOAJ’s parent company, IS4OA, announced they would introduce new criteria for inclusion in DOAJ [1] and that DOAJ would collect vastly more information from journals as part of the accreditation process – and that journals already included, would need to reapply in order to be kept in the registry. My hypothesis was that the journals removed from DOAJ on May 9th 2016 would chiefly be journals from small publishers (mostly single journal publishers) and that DOAJ journal metadata information would reveal that they were journals with a lower level of publishing competence than those that would remain in the DOAJ. Among indicators of publishing competence could be the use of APCs, permanent article identifiers, journal licenses, article level metadata deposited with DOAJ, archiving policy/solutions and/or having a policy in SHERPA/RoMEO. The analysis shows my concerns to be correct.

Subject Areas

Open access; DOAJ; publisher size

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.