Conflict between the DOAJ acceptance criteria and the C4DISC principles, delivered at Tātou Tātou: Gather & Grow NLNZ 4-5 February 2021. http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://lianza.org.nz/events/telres-symposium/ https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TTGG21

1. Conflict between the DOAJ acceptance criteria and the
C4DISC principles.
Stuart Yeates
https://twitter.com/stuartayeates
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1809-1062
Tātou Tātou: Gather & Grow
NLNZ
4-5 February 2021

2. Directory of Open Access Journals
● Index of 15,000 Open Access journals
● Now a UK not-for-profit
● Global-north perspective
● Adopted the C4DISC Joint Statement of
Principles

3. Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in
Scholarly Communications (C4DISC)
● Recently-formed US-based group-of-groups aiming to
foster diversity and inclusion
● Lists 16 “identity groups” to foster the diversity and
inclusion of:
○ Citizenship status
○ Ethnicity
○ …

4. Meeting the Principles
● Looking at the criteria as at 31 August 2020,
when I started this work
● Issues:
○ Defacto real-name policy
○ Informally-written criteria
○ ISSNs

5. Defacto Real Name Policy
DOAJ requires real names for:
● Person submitting the journal for inclusion
● Editors and members of the editorial board
● Email contact points for journal
● Also requires evidence of a PhD

6. Real names are problematic - Part I
● Conflicts with protecting minorities in
jurisdictions where those minorities are
suppressed

7. Real names are problematic - Part II
● Many cultures and subcultures have issues with
the concept of individuals having a single ‘real’
name
● Google, Facebook and others have attempted to
implement real name policies, all have abandoned
them
● ORCID doesn’t require real names, and appears no
worse for it.

8. Informally-written criteria
● Under-specified criteria and no robust
transparent method for challenging them
allows DOAJ reviewers to unconsciously bring
their biases to bear on the question of what a
peer review journal looks like.

9. Informally-written criteria - Examples
● “The full text of ALL content must...” appears to mean
“The complete content must...” but excludes non-textual
journals such as JOVE
● The differentiation in the guidelines between “web
page,” “site,” “website” and “web site,” which appears
opaque and/or inadvertent but has significant impact on
the eligibility of non-traditionally hosted (but yet clearly
scholarly) journals (think NZLIMJ)
● ...

10. ISSNs
● Allocated by national agencies, with nations
without agencies covered by an international
agency
● Made perfect sense when journals were
printed on multi-ton presses and the concept
of ‘nation’ was uncontested.

11. ISSN - Question I
Where does a Kiwi research student go for an ISSN
for a student journal running on their phone?

12. ISSN - Question II
Where does a Kiwi research student go for an ISSN
for a student journal running on their phone, if
they’re in Antarctica?

13. ISSN - Question III
Where does a Kiwi research student go for an ISSN
for a student journal running on their device, if
their device is in orbit?

14. ISSN - Question IV
Where does a Kiwi research student go for an ISSN
for a student journal, if they’re on deployment as
part of a UN-mandated peace-keeping mission?

15. ISSN - Question V
Where do stateless / refugee folk get their ISSNs?

16. ISSN - Question VI
Where does a research student go for an ISSN for
a journal, if it’s hosted anonymously on the
darknet / TOR?
● There don’t appear to be methods of acquiring
ISSNs without disclosing country of origin
● There don’t appear to be methods of acquiring
ISSNs anonymously

17. Alternatives to ISSNs?
● No good ones that I’m aware of
● Some recent work from the W3C may be
relevant

18. Meet the Principles?
● No
● But could be made significantly more compliant
relatively easily
● ISSNs may be too deeply embedded in library
practice to drop easily

19. Questions?
?