Challenges Facing the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) as a Reliable Source of Open Access Publishing Venues

10.6120/JoEMLS.201811_55(3).e003.BC.BE

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva；Judit Dobránszki；Aceil Al-Khatib；Panagiotis Tsigaris

Blacklists versus whitelists ； Open access ； Predatory behavior ； Unscholarly publishing

教育資料與圖書館學

55卷3期（2018 / 11 / 01）

349 - 358

英文

Academics in the post-Jeffrey Beall era are seeking to find suitable solutions to differentiating reliable from unreliable open access (OA) journals and publishers. After the controversial, vague and unreliable Beall lists of ＂predatory＂ OA journals became defunct on 15 January 2017, two main contenders stepped forward to fill that gap: Cabell's International blacklist and a newly revised Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) whitelist. Although the DOAJ has in fact existed since 2003, it is only in recent years that it has reached prominence, garnering attention after the infamous 2013 Bohannon sting in Science revealed multiple, approximately one in five, Bealllisted ＂predatory＂ OA journals and publishers on the DOAJ lists. The DOAJ conducted a massive clean-up of its lists and continues to undergo constant reevaluation of its members and journals it lists. This paper highlights some of the changes that occurred in the DOAJ, as well as several challenges that remain, highlighting why this whitelist of OA journals and publishers is still far from perfection. Academics are cautioned against relying on any one list such as that held by the DOAJ to avoid repeating the serious errors and misguided approaches that took place when global academia placed blind trust in Beall's lists.

1. Al-Khatib, A.,Teixeira da Silva, J. A.(2016).Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing.Publishing Research Quarterly,32(3),208-219.
2. Beall, J.(2016).Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record.Nature,534,326.
3. Beaubien, S.,Eckard, M.(2014).Addressing faculty publishing concerns with open access journal quality indicators.Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication,2(2),eP1133.
4. Berger, M.,Cirasella, J.(2015).Beyond Beall's list: Better understanding predatory publishers.College & Research Libraries News,76(3),132-135.
5. Bi, X.(2017).Quality open access publishing and registration to Directory of Open Access Journals.Science Editing,4(1),3-11.
6. Bloudoff-Indelicato, M.(2015).Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers.Nature,526(7575),613.
7. Bohannon, J.(2013).Who's afraid of peer review?.Science,342(6154),60-65.
8. Crawford, W. (2016). 'Trust me': The other problem with 87% of Beall's lists. Retrieved from http://walt.lishost.org/2016/01/trust-me-the-other-problem-with-87-of-bealls-lists/
9. DOAJ. (2018, June). Retrieved from https://doaj.org/sponsors
10. Gurov, A. N.,Goncharova, Y. G.,Bubyakin, G. B.(2016).Open access to scientific knowledge: Its state, problems, and prospects of development.Scientific and Technical Information Processing,43(2),88-94.
11. Marchitelli, A.,Galimberti, P.,Bollini, A.,Mitchell, D.(2017).Improvement of editorial quality of journals indexed in DOAJ: A data analysis.JLIS.it,8(1),1-21.
12. Olijhoek, T.,Mitchell, D.,Bjørnshauge, L.(2015).Criteria for open access and publishing.ScienceOpen Research
13. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.(2016).Science watchdogs.Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies,5(3),13-15.
14. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.(2017).The ethical and academic implications of the Jeffrey Beall (www. scholarlyoa.com) blog shutdown.Science and Engineering Ethics
15. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.(2017).Caution with the continued use of Jeffrey Beall's "predatory" open access publishing lists.AME Medical Journal,2(7),97.
16. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.(2018).The illicit and illegitimate continued use of Jeffrey Beall's "predatory" open access black lists.Journal of Radical Librarianship,4,1-5.
17. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.(2017).Jeffrey Beall's "predatory" lists must not be used: they are biased, flawed, opaque and inaccurate.Bibliothecae.it,6(1),425-436.
18. Teixeira da Silva, J. A.,Al-Khatib, A.(2016).Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon's hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing.KOME,4(1),84-88.
19. Van Noorden, R.(2014).Open-access website gets tough.Nature,512(7512),17.
20. Wicherts, J. M.(2016).Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals.PLoS ONE,11(1),e0147913.