One of our improved services to the community is increased transparency. Accordingly, we have decided to publish a list of the journals added to and removed from our directory.

Read the list. [Opens in new tab/window.]

The lists are split over two tabs of the same spreadsheet.

The list of journals removed starts from the beginning of the 2014. Because we were undergoing development, we were unable to ADD new journals for the first quarter of this year. However, we were able to remove journals so, as part of our regular weeding and reviewing, a good number of journals were removed during this time. The list includes journal title, ISSN, date removed and the reason.

The list of journals added starts from 19th March 2014. ALL the journals added after this date have met the NEW criteria as required by our new application form. You can read our press release from 19th March 2014. The list includes journal title, ISSN and date added.

[UPDATE: this document now contains a third sheet/tab showing a list of rejected applications.]

So that the community can easily recognise those journals that have met the new criteria, we will mark them with this symbol:

DOAJ accepted logo
Denotes those journals that have been accepted into DOAJ based on the new, extended criteria

The symbol will appear alongside a journal title in search results and on a journal’s Issues page. We will make further announcements when we are ready with this feature.

As ever, get in touch if you have questions!

UPDATED: 28th August 2014

[The link to the spreadsheet in this blog post was updated on 1st February 2024.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



    You are about to enter data into the new DOAJ application form? You wonder if your journal is prepared well enough to get accepted into DOAJ? You wonder what you need to answer, so that your journal will qualify for the DOAJ? The information is available from different places on DOAJ’s site! Here are my(!) answers:

    What Your Journal MUST HAVE for acceptance

    DOAJ has some general requirements for acceptance. They are checked when DOAJ looks at your journal web page as given with the URL under (2).

    2) “Types of resource: scientific and scholarly periodicals that publish research or review papers in full text.” (Found at:

    2) “Level: the target group for included journals should primarily be researchers.” (Found at:

    2) The link must go to the URL for the specific journal and not to a collection of journals. (Found at:

    4) ISSN (Found at:

    5) EISSN (Found at:

    13) and 16) “If the journal charges authors or authors’ institutions any handling fees, publication fees or similar, the amount should be clearly stated;” (Found at: Note: DOAJ is not asking where this information can be found. So DOAJ has to search itself for this information on your site. Better DISPLAY THE INFORMATION CLEARLY.

    19) Activity: The journal can be included in DOAJ once it has started publishing but “A journal must publish at least 5 articles per year” (Found at:

    34) “The journal must have either an editor or an editorial board with clearly identifiable members including affiliation information.” (Found at: If the e-mail addresses are not online, DOAJ will ask for email addresses as part of their checks. (Found at:

    Quality: For a journal to be included it should exercise quality control on submitted papers through an editor, editorial board and/or a peer-review system. (Found at:

    35) Please select the review process (“None” does not qualify for DOAJ)

    36) “Enter the URL where this information [from 35] can be found.” “This field is optional if you have selected ‘None’ above.” (Found at: (If you have selected ‘none’ in 35 you will not get into DOAJ anyway).

    42) “All the content of the journal you are applying about must be available immediately upon publication.” (Found at:

    42) and 50) “Please take care to identify any possible contradictions between your Open Access policy and your copyright policy.” (Found at:

    Your Journal SHOULD HAVE for acceptance (RECOMMENDED)

    Again: DOAJ has some general ideas. They are looked at when DOAJ looks at your journal web page as given with the URL under (2).

    2) “Content is available article by article, one PDF for each article, and not one PDF per issue.” (Found at:

    2) “Articles will be gathered in volumes, marked with the year the articles were published” (Found at:

    2) “Mark each article with the specific article type.” (Found at:

    2) “Commercials or banner advertising on your journal’s web site(s) … is not in any way offensive” “Blinking and/or moving objects will distract” (Found at:

    10 and 11) “A contact email address.” (Found at:

    36) “Describe the [quality] process clearly on the web site” (Found at:

    36) 37) 38) 42) Information SHOULD be given at the journal level.
    “Please note that all necessary information (by ‘necessary information’, we are referring to the journal’s aims and scope, the clear presence of the editorial board, the author guidelines, the description of the quality control system and the Open Access statement) about the specific journal SHOULD be available at its own URL to make it easier for users to interpret the information correctly.” (Found at:

    You learn from the rest of the questions in the new application form what else is good to have or even to get DOAJ’s Seal. It is important to fill out the form in all detail. Every piece of information you give is stored in the DOAJ for your benefit and for complete information about your journal. Be assured DOAJ sticks to its criteria. Your journal will be accepted for inclusion into the DOAJ, if you fulfill all “MUST HAVE” criteria. But please, do not stop at this point. Make sure, you really have set up your journal well also for the “SHOULD HAVE” criteria and at best even for much more.

    1. Go to the document and toward the bottom of the spreadsheet there should be two tabs, one of which is called ‘Removed’.

  2. How do I access articles about a particular scholar without going through all the articles you people have here?

  3. Could you please provide the list of removed journals in a more durable and visible, and reusable form (e.g. CSV and HTML)? It would be helpful still to see in 5 or 10 years from now what what in DOAJ today.

    1. Hi Jakob, it is our intention to make this list available directly on the web site but it’s on a list of developments. I agree that this information should be archived. We will transfer this to the site (and archive) as soon as we can. Dom


    DOAJ maintains a page with a list of journals ADDED (based on the new application form), REMOVED (mostly due to inactivity) and REJECTED APPLICATIONS (based on the new application form). The new stricter application form is online since March 2014.

    The new tab on the list called „REJECTED APPLICATIONS“ is basically a BLACKLIST. The link to this list:

    DOAJ’s ambition: „DOAJ to be THE white list! and make other [black] lists superfluous“

    Why then now DOAJ’s Blacklist?

    On 2014-08-14 Rick Anderson wrote „Housecleaning at the Directory of Open Access Journals“ and argued: “… unless the DOAJ plans to make public the names of rejected journals, the downside of applying is nonexistent; if you’re rejected but can remain anonymous, you’re no worse off than you were before.”

    On 2014-08-28 Lars Bjoernshauge of DOAJ answered: „we currently publish lists of journals added and removed, as well as a list of rejected applications“ „We will soon add a page showing journals that have failed to pass the reapplication process“ (

    You can look at this blog entry from DOAJ to see an “UPDATE: this document now contains a third sheet/tab showing a list of rejected applications” posted also on 2014-08-28. Probably being pressured by influential people with a more conservative view on publishing, DOAJ saw a need to reposition itself. With short-lived memory, DOAJ forgot that it had promised not to do so as stated in the common declaration together with OASPA, COPE and WAME: “We do not intend to develop or publish a list of publishers or journals that failed to demonstrate they met the criteria for transparency and best practice.” ( and

    1. Hi Dieter

      Thanks for your observations and for pointing out our error. We did not intend our list of rejected journals to be a blacklist. We thought it would be a good idea, in the interest of transparency and after prompts from Rick Anderson, to publish the list but I admit that there is a fine line between this and blacklisting. As a result, we have now removed the Rejected Applications sheet from the Google Document you reference. And of course, DOAJ stands by the Principles of Transparency that we co-authored, especially the introductory statement:

      “We do not intend to develop or publish a list of publishers or journals that failed to demonstrate they met the criteria for transparency and best practice.”

      Finally, I would like to add that ANY journal whose application has been rejected can reapply at any time. IF they have shown significant improvements in the areas that will have been discussed with them by DOAJ staff, before the application is rejected, then reapplication is welcome. The big difference between our approach to applications and Beall’s is that we have a team of people pro-actively working with the applicants to help them get their journals into our directory. If a journal falls down in one area, we try to help them improve or at least give them the information to do so.



    On your “Removed” tab (see also my comment above for details) I find entries like “Journal not adhering to best practice” and “Suspected editorial misconduct by publisher” this is new wording compared to what the “Removed” tab showed before. There are people who argue that a blacklist is necessary – fine. However, DOAJ issues a statement with COPE/OASPA/WAME: “We do not intend to develop or publish a list of publishers or journals that failed to demonstrate they met the criteria for transparency and best practice” and does again something different. All kind of things can be done, but what I can not stand is, if statements are inconsistent, contradictory, or illogical from people who should be capable of doing better (and claim to be on moral high ground to judge others).

    1. The first category ‘Journal not adhering to best practice’ has always been a category. This is not new.

      The second category ‘Suspected editorial misconduct by publisher’ was added when we recently updated our policies and added our disclaimer.

      One of the requirements made on us by libraries, consortia and other users of our metadata is to publish a list of journals removed from DOAJ along with a reason. Third parties that rely on DOAJ metadata use these lists to keep their own databases up to date. We have been informed that publishing just a list of titles and ISSNs is not enough; it doesn’t allow the database administrators enough information to make a judgement on what had happened to the journal.

      DOAJ has *never* claimed to be on moral high ground—others may have claimed that about us—and neither have we broken any promises.