Preparing a DOAJ application: turn selected criteria into evidence

1. Freeze the scope of the readiness review

The guide identifies its current edition as version 2.9 and distinguishes requirements from recommendations. It also warns that translations may lag. Use the current English source for the controlling wording, while preparing clear Arabic explanations for your team. Do not assume that an older translated checklist contains later changes.

Create a dated cover sheet naming the exact journal, publisher, website, languages and publishing model. List the sections of the guide that apply and any category-specific questions still needing review. A case-report journal and a title publishing conference proceedings may need different supporting material. Do not copy another journal’s completed form and treat its circumstances as your own.

Reference: DOAJ: Guide to applying, version 2.9

2. Give every proposed answer a source and owner

For each selected criterion, save the relevant public page, its location, the date checked, the fact it supports and a responsible editor. Add a separate internal practice record when a public policy alone cannot establish what happened. A policy can describe the intended review process while the corresponding manuscript file is still incomplete.

Use precise evidence states such as checked, contradictory, missing and not yet assessed. Avoid a single readiness percentage that obscures an unresolved requirement. If six links load but one is the wrong journal’s page, six successful web requests do not equal six verified answers. Identify the claim each page actually supports before marking its row checked.

3. Work through a fictional four-row worksheet

Suppose a fictional bilingual journal reviews its site on 15 September 2026. Its team supplies a matching registered title and ISSN record; one sampled article has a unique page and accessible full text. Its English fee page lists an APC, while the Arabic page says no author charges. Licensing information has not yet been supplied. These are invented premises, not a check of a real publisher.

DOAJ requires a confirmed ISSN and matching title, individual full-text article URLs, accessible information about author charges, and consistent information across site languages. In the exercise, the fee contradiction needs correction and licensing evidence remains missing. A successful sample article check does not establish the state of the entire archive.

Reference: DOAJ: Guide to applying, version 2.9

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

4. Resolve policy conflicts at their source

DOAJ’s separate rights guidance requires compatible licensing, copyright and open-access terms. It recommends Creative Commons licences without prescribing one particular licence for every journal. The exercise therefore cannot be solved by pasting a familiar licence name onto a page before the publisher has established the intended rights arrangements.

Ask the responsible publisher to confirm the approved policy and identify the documents it governs. Compare the author agreement, website and article presentation. If a conflict needs specialist interpretation, record the exact unresolved question and owner. A website edit should reflect an authorised policy; it should not silently create new terms for articles already published.

Reference: DOAJ: licensing and copyright

5. Check the corrected public pages and actual practice

For the fictional fee conflict, the team must first establish which terms are approved. After correction, another person should open both public language versions and the author instructions. Record the date, page version and remaining exceptions. A draft in an editor’s folder does not show what an applicant or author currently sees.

Keep the review of real editorial practice separate from the website checklist. Sample evidence under the journal’s authorised access rules and avoid copying confidential reviewer identities or manuscripts into a broadly shared application worksheet. Summarise the relevant practice and retain the underlying record in its proper controlled location. This proposed workflow is not a claim that DOAJ has reviewed the journal.

6. Preserve the application’s actual stage

DOAJ describes submission confirmation, editorial review and an acceptance notification as separate events. Maintain distinct fields for draft completion, submission evidence, reviewer questions, decision and the current public directory record. A saved form or an internal readiness sign-off is not an inclusion decision. No application was submitted as part of this fictional exercise.

Before making a public directory claim, inspect the actual current record and ensure it matches the journal. Set an owner for later record updates and policy changes. If a previous assessment is no longer current, qualify it by date. Good preparation makes the answers traceable; it does not promise acceptance, a decision date or a ranking benefit.

Reference: DOAJ: Guide to applying, version 2.9

Questions for a practical final check

• Exact journal and current guide version recorded.
• Selected checks are not presented as the full criteria.
• Every answer has a source, date and owner.
• English and Arabic policy conflicts resolved.
• Public pages and internal practice assessed separately.
• Draft, submission, review and inclusion remain distinct.