The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance?
AbstractIn December 2012, DOAJ’s (The Directory of Open Access Journals) parent company, IS4OA, announced they would introduce new criteria for inclusion in DOAJ and that DOAJ would collect vastly more information from journals as part of the accreditation process—journals already included would need to reapply in order to be kept in the registry. My working 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 (Article Processing Charges), permanent article identifiers, journal licenses, article level metadata deposited with DOAJ, archiving policy/solutions and/or having a policy in SHERPA/RoMEO, the database containing self-archiving policies for more than 30,000 journals. The analysis shows my concerns to be correct. View Full-Text
Externally hosted supplementary file 1
Description: The DOAJ 2016 spring clean-upDraftIn
Share & Cite This Article
Frantsvåg, J.E. The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? Publications 2019, 7, 45.
Frantsvåg JE. The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? Publications. 2019; 7(3):45.Chicago/Turabian Style
Frantsvåg, Jan E. 2019. "The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance?" Publications 7, no. 3: 45.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.