Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A journal's public 'About'/'Journal Information' page names its editorial team with institutional affiliations and contact details, states its peer-review model (e.g. double-anonymized, minimum number of reviewers per submission), discloses the exact APC amount and any waiver policy, and names a specific archiving arrangement (e.g. CLOCKSS or Portico) — each disclosure maps directly onto one of the 16 principle categories, and is the same kind of disclosure DOAJ's own application form checks for before indexing a title.
- Is an instance
A society-owned journal that changes commercial publisher publishes a clear ownership-and-management statement distinguishing the sponsoring learned society from the publisher handling production and distribution — satisfying the framework's 'ownership and management' and 'editorial team' items rather than leaving the relationship ambiguous.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
A journal whose website names no identifiable editors or editorial board, describes peer review only as 'all articles are peer reviewed' with no further detail, withholds its APC amount until after a manuscript is accepted, and states no archiving arrangement at all. This is the same operational profile the CASRAI predatory-journals guide flags as a red-flag pattern — it fails enough of the 16 items that COPE, DOAJ, and OASPA membership/indexing reviewers would decline it on transparency grounds alone, independent of any judgment about the underlying research quality.
- Not an instance
Treating the Principles themselves as a peer-review standard, a certification mark, or an indexing service: they are none of these. They are a disclosure-and-practice checklist that COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/WAME each apply as one input into their own separate membership or inclusion decisions — meeting the Principles does not, by itself, guarantee DOAJ indexing, Scopus/Web of Science coverage, or COPE membership, each of which layers additional criteria on top.
Editorial commentary
The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing is a joint framework of 16 disclosure-and-practice criteria, developed and maintained together by four organisations: the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). It is not a COPE-only document, despite sometimes being referred to that way.
What the 16 criteria cover
The Principles are organised into four groups:
- Journal content — the journal’s name, website, publishing schedule, and archiving arrangement.
- Journal practices — its publication-ethics and editorial policies, peer-review process, access model, and copyright/licensing terms.
- Organization — ownership and management, any advisory body, and a named editorial team with contact information.
- Business practices — author fees, other revenue sources, advertising, and direct marketing.
A journal or publisher “meets the Principles” when each of the 16 items is disclosed, verifiable, and consistent with what the framework specifies — not simply when a publisher asserts general trustworthiness. That distinction is what makes the framework operational rather than aspirational: it functions as a checklist against which a specific journal’s public-facing information can be verified item by item.
Version history
The document was first published in December 2013, with subsequent revisions in 2015, January 2018 (version 3), and September 2022 (version 4, the current version as of this writing). Each revision has generally expanded or clarified the disclosure expectations rather than replacing the framework’s underlying structure.
How the four organisations use it
COPE, DOAJ, and OASPA each use the Principles as part of their own membership or indexing assessment criteria, and WAME applies them as part of its own membership evaluation — meaning compliance with the Principles is a real, checked input into concrete decisions (DOAJ indexing, COPE or OASPA membership, WAME membership), not just a public statement of values. Compliance with the Principles is also cited as one factor among several that major indexing services, including Scopus, weigh when assessing a journal for inclusion, though every index layers its own additional criteria on top.
Why it matters for spotting a low-quality or predatory journal
The Principles are frequently used, in practice, as a diagnostic against low-transparency or predatory journals: a journal whose website names no identifiable editors or editorial board, describes peer review only as “all articles are peer reviewed” with no further detail, withholds its APC amount until after acceptance, and states no archiving arrangement at all is failing enough of the 16 items that COPE, DOAJ, and OASPA reviewers would decline it on transparency grounds alone — independent of any separate judgment about the underlying research quality.
What it is not
The Principles are not themselves a peer-review standard, a certification mark, or an indexing service. They are a disclosure-and-practice checklist that COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME each apply as one input into their own separate membership or inclusion decisions. Meeting the Principles does not, by itself, guarantee DOAJ indexing, Scopus or Web of Science coverage, or COPE membership — each of those layers additional criteria of its own on top.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who wrote the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing?
Four organisations jointly: COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. It is not COPE-only guidance, despite the name sometimes being shortened informally to “the COPE principles.”
What version is current?
Version 4, published September 2022. Earlier versions were published in December 2013 (v1), 2015 (v2), and January 2018 (v3).
Does meeting the Principles guarantee DOAJ indexing?
No. Meeting the Principles is one input DOAJ (and COPE, OASPA, WAME) weighs in its own separate assessment process, not an automatic guarantee of indexing or membership.
References
- Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, World Association of Medical Editors, “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing” (version 4, September 2022), publicationethics.org / doaj.org.
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing",
"name": "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing",
"description": "A joint framework of 16 disclosure and practice criteria — organized around journal content (name, website, publishing schedule, archiving), journal practices (publication ethics and editorial policies, peer review, access, copyright and licensing), organization (ownership and management, an advisory body, a named editorial team with contact information), and business practices (author fees, other revenue sources, advertising, direct marketing) — jointly developed and maintained by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). First published in December 2013; subsequent versions were released in 2015, January 2018 (v3), and September 2022 (v4, the current version). A journal or publisher is an instance of 'meeting the Principles' when each of the 16 items is disclosed, verifiable, and consistent with what the framework specifies — not when a publisher merely asserts general trustworthiness. COPE, DOAJ, and OASPA each use the Principles as part of their own membership/indexing assessment criteria, and WAME applies them as part of its membership evaluation — meaning the framework functions as an operational, checkable definition of what a legitimate journal must show, not an aspirational statement. Compliance with the Principles is also cited as one of the criteria major indexing services (e.g. Scopus) weigh when assessing a journal for inclusion, though each index applies its own separate, additional criteria on top of it.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/research-integrity#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing",
"sameAs": [],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-17T01:56:26",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
