Why Journals Fail Indexing Applications

Indexing applications represent significant investments of time and hope. When rejections arrive, the disappointment often comes with vague feedback that leaves journals uncertain about what went wrong. Understanding common rejection reasons—before you apply—dramatically improves your chances of success.

The High Stakes of Indexing #

For academic journals, indexing in databases like DOAJ, Scopus, or PubMed isn't vanity—it's survival. Authors increasingly limit submissions to indexed journals. Institutional policies may require indexed publication venues. Library budgets prioritise indexed content. Rejection from major indexes can limit a journal's viability regardless of content quality.

This pressure sometimes leads journals to apply prematurely, hoping for the best. But poorly prepared applications waste evaluator time and start relationships on the wrong foot. Understanding requirements thoroughly and meeting them completely before applying yields far better outcomes.

Common Rejection Reasons: DOAJ #

The Directory of Open Access Journals has clear, published criteria. Yet journals still fail for predictable reasons:

Licensing Issues #

DOAJ requires clear Creative Commons licensing (or equivalent) with license information displayed on every article. Journals often fail because licenses aren't clearly stated, license information is inconsistent between articles, or the license claimed doesn't match the actual terms described.

Additionally, DOAJ expects licensing information in article metadata—not just displayed on pages. Missing or incorrect metadata licensing causes rejections even when page displays are correct.

Article Processing Charges Transparency #

If your journal charges publication fees, DOAJ requires complete transparency: exact amounts (not "contact us for pricing"), what fees cover, when fees are collected, and waiver policies. Hidden fees, unclear pricing, or missing waiver information trigger rejection.

Even fully diamond (no-fee) journals must clearly state that no charges exist. Lack of fee information is treated as suspicious, not assumed to mean free.

Website Deficiencies #

DOAJ evaluators visit your website. Missing author guidelines, absent editorial board listings, incomplete contact information, or broken functionality create negative impressions and often cause rejection regardless of content quality.

The website must also be functional and professional. Errors, slow loading, broken links, and poor mobile experience all reflect on journal quality in evaluators' minds.

Peer Review Concerns #

DOAJ requires evidence of peer review, not just claims of it. Journals must describe their review process clearly and demonstrate implementation. Vague statements like "all articles are peer reviewed" without process details don't satisfy requirements.

Common Rejection Reasons: Scopus #

Scopus evaluation is more subjective than DOAJ's checklist approach. The Content Selection and Advisory Board considers multiple factors holistically:

Content Quality Doubts #

Evaluators read sample articles. Poor English, inadequate methodology, superficial analysis, or lack of original contribution lead to rejection. Quality concerns cannot be addressed with technical fixes—they require genuine improvement in published content.

Limited Geographic Diversity #

Journals publishing primarily from single institutions or countries face scepticism about international relevance. Scopus seeks journals serving global scholarly communities, not institutional outlets or regional publications without broader reach.

Insufficient Track Record #

Newer journals often apply too soon. Scopus typically expects 2-3 years of consistent publication history. Journals without demonstrated sustainability and consistency receive "not yet ready" responses regardless of quality.

Citation Concerns #

Scopus examines whether published articles receive citations from other indexed sources. Journals with minimal external citations—or suspiciously high self-citation rates—raise red flags during evaluation.

Editorial Board Weaknesses #

Board members should have verifiable academic credentials and relevant expertise. Boards heavy on single-institution members, lacking clear research records, or with questionable affiliations undermine applications.

Technical and Website Issues #

Both DOAJ and Scopus (and other indexes) evaluate website functionality as proxy for journal quality:

Accessibility Problems #

If evaluators can't access articles, review policies, or navigate your site effectively, your application fails. Login requirements, broken links, timeout errors, and missing pages all cause problems.

Metadata Gaps #

Missing or incorrect article metadata—DOIs, author information, abstracts, keywords—suggests inadequate attention to scholarly infrastructure. Complete, accurate metadata is baseline expectation.

Security Concerns #

Sites lacking HTTPS, showing browser warnings, or displaying signs of compromise signal poor management. Evaluators reasonably question overall journal quality when basic security is neglected.

Mobile Failures #

Evaluators may access your site from various devices. Sites that don't function on mobile devices appear outdated and poorly maintained.

Policy Documentation Failures #

Indexes expect clear documentation of:

Publication Ethics: Policies addressing plagiarism, conflicts of interest, corrections, retractions, and research ethics. Alignment with COPE guidelines demonstrates commitment to ethical publishing.

Peer Review Process: Clear description of review type (single-blind, double-blind, open), reviewer selection, evaluation criteria, and decision-making process.

Copyright and Licensing: Clear statements about who owns published content and under what terms it can be used.

Archiving and Preservation: Information about long-term content preservation and archiving arrangements.

Missing or inadequate policies suggest journals haven't thought through fundamental operational questions.

The Reapplication Problem #

After rejection, journals face waiting periods before reapplying—24 months for Scopus. This waiting period means rejection has long-term consequences beyond immediate disappointment.

Reapplications should demonstrate meaningful improvements addressing rejection reasons. Simply resubmitting without changes wastes everyone's time and may reduce future chances further.

Pre-Application Assessment #

Before applying to any index, honestly assess your journal against their criteria:

Read the complete requirements documentation—not summaries or interpretations, but primary sources. Create a checklist of every requirement. Systematically verify your journal meets each one. Document evidence you'll provide for subjective criteria.

If gaps exist, address them before applying. Premature applications create rejection records; patient preparation leads to acceptance.

The Website Foundation #

Many rejection reasons ultimately trace to website issues: missing information, inaccessible content, poor presentation, inadequate metadata. Investing in professional journal infrastructure addresses multiple indexing criteria simultaneously while improving author and reader experience.

A well-built OJS installation with proper configuration, complete metadata, clear policies, and professional presentation creates the foundation for successful indexing applications across multiple platforms.