Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Maryam Sayab. Maryam is the Director of Communications at the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE) and Co-Chair of Peer Review Week. With a background rooted in research integrity and publication ethics, she actively works to advance regional conversations around responsible peer review, transparent editorial practices, and inclusive open science.

In scholarly publishing, terms like inclusivity, diversity, and openness are frequently championed. Yet the infrastructure underpinning how we measure, recognize, and disseminate research remains rooted in a specific set of historical, linguistic, and technological assumptions, ones that do not always fit the realities of regions such as the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

This isn’t simply a technical or quality-related issue. It is a question of design: Who builds the systems of scholarly visibility, and do those systems accommodate the full spectrum of global research practices? This post explores why many MENA-based journals remain underrepresented in global indexing databases, how this affects both local and international knowledge flows, and what alternative pathways can bring the region into fuller view.

The Infrastructure Mismatch: Visibility Starts with Systems

Inclusion in indexing platforms like Scopus or Web of Science depends on meeting a series of technical requirements. These include DOI registration (e.g., via Crossref), standardized metadata formats such as JATS XML, ORCID integration, and transparent peer review processes.

These infrastructures are often built with highly resourced institutions in mind. Many MENA journals, particularly those based in Arabic regions and housed within public universities, operate with limited funding, staff, and technological support. For example, a locally impactful journal in Egypt or Algeria may struggle with DOI assignment, simply due to a lack of access to digital publishing partners or support systems.

Many editorial teams across the MENA region produce high-quality, locally relevant research, often under resource-constrained conditions. However, the lack of access to automated publishing infrastructure, such as DOI registration systems, XML metadata tools, and editorial workflow software, creates barriers to meeting the technical requirements of global indexing databases. As Mahmoud Khalifa of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) noted in his 2025 analysis of Diamond Open Access journals in the region, “the challenge is not scholarly quality, but operational alignment with global digital standards.”

 Language as a Barrier: The Role of English Dominance

The global scholarly communication system still overwhelmingly privileges English-language content. Arabic-language journals, even those employing robust peer review and producing research of regional importance, often remain unindexed simply because their outputs fall outside the language scope of global aggregators.

In fields such as public health or education policy, where context matters, excluding Arabic-language literature can distort the evidence base. For instance, a local journal documenting post-conflict trauma patterns in Yemen may provide critical insight, but without translation or abstract-level indexing, it’s invisible to global researchers.

DOAJ has made some efforts to be more inclusive of non-English content, but even there, metadata and application instructions remain English-centric, creating an unintentional access barrier.

Peer Review and Recognition: A Mismatch in Practice

Another area of disconnect is peer review. Many MENA journals follow ethical and community-based review systems that are locally trusted, often guided by national or regional frameworks. For instance, platforms such as the ASJP (Algerian Scientific Journal Platform), Egypt’s Supreme Council of Universities, and Iran’s Ministry of Science, Research and Technology have developed their own criteria and audit processes for journal accreditation.

These models ensure rigor within local academic contexts, but they do not always align with international peer review documentation practices defined by organizations like COPE or STM. Many editorial boards rely on in-person review discussions, paper-based records, or institutional approvals, which don’t easily fit into globally recognized digital workflows or metadata schemas.

This divergence isn’t about a lack of quality; it reflects differences in institutional culture, technological capacity, and peer review tradition.

Personal Reflection: It’s Not About Imitation

As someone deeply engaged in regional publishing reform, I hold great respect for the systems that have shaped modern scholarly communication. However, admiration alone doesn’t solve the core issue. Replicating complex digital infrastructures and international best practices is not always feasible for MENA journals operating under resource constraints.

Rather than pushing for replication of models developed in the Global North, perhaps the better question is: how can we create indexing and assessment systems flexible enough to incorporate diverse publishing traditions without compromising credibility?

Toward Inclusion by Design: Steps Forward

The conversation needs to shift from inclusion-as-adjustment to inclusion-as-design. Consider the following strategies:

Metadata Flexibility: Encourage metadata standards that support multilingual titles, abstracts, and keywords. Crossref’s multilingual metadata features offer a valuable step in this direction.

Localized Impact Metrics: Develop regional indicators of impact, such as policy uptake, community engagement, or media coverage, beyond traditional citation counts.

Collaborative Onboarding: Instead of applying one-size-fits-all checklists, indexing platforms could co-design onboarding programs with regional and national indexing bodies such as the Arab Citation & Impact Factor (ARCIF), Iran’s Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC), Algerian Scientific Journal Platform (ASJP), and Egypt’s National Knowledge Bank. These entities already maintain trust within their academic ecosystems and can serve as effective bridges for journals aspiring to international indexing.

Funding Models for Digital Transition: International initiatives such as UNESCO’s Open Science Recommendation or grants from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) could be directed toward building digital infrastructure for under-indexed journals.

Editor and Librarian Networks: Enable direct dialogue between global platforms and regional stakeholders through collaborative forums and joint panels, such as those hosted by OASPA, INASP, or FORCE11.

From Observation to Strategy: A Practitioner’s View

In my work with both regional journals and international publishing networks, I’ve seen firsthand that the issue isn’t a lack of quality or ambition in MENA scholarship; it’s a mismatch between global recognition systems and local realities. Rather than urging MENA journals to replicate global models wholesale, we must begin to co-design a path that honors different starting points and strengths.

This isn’t about catching up; it’s about showing up differently.

As a communications lead and policy advocate, I’ve come to see this moment not as a crisis of exclusion, but as an invitation to rethink how inclusion is structured. That means:

• Reframing local publishing models, including multilingualism, cultural specificity, and applied impact, as foundational, not fringe.
• Investing in sustainable capacity-building, not just infrastructure acquisition, so editorial teams are supported over time, not just evaluated.
• Engaging global indexing platforms in two-way dialogue to reimagine onboarding strategies, rather than applying top-down eligibility audits.
• Fostering regional alliances to share tools, training, and leverage in advocating for policy changes that reflect diverse academic ecosystems.

True global visibility won’t come from mimicry; it will come from mutual recognition and co-authored standards. The more we treat this as a collaborative design challenge, not a deficit, the closer we get to a genuinely inclusive publishing system, both in form and function.

Looking Ahead: Designing a Truly Global Scholarly Future

If we want to move beyond symbolic inclusion toward meaningful participation, then the systems that shape global scholarly visibility must become more porous, responsive, and collaborative. This is not just a moral imperative; it is a strategic one. We cannot afford a global research ecosystem that overlooks entire regions simply because their workflows, languages, or infrastructural contexts do not align with inherited standards.

As discussed, the challenge facing MENA journals is not a lack of academic rigor or editorial integrity. It is the absence of mechanisms that recognize their unique contributions on equitable terms. What is needed now is a shift in how we define and value legitimacy in scholarly publishing.

From my position working across both regional and global networks, I believe the most sustainable path forward lies in strategic co-creation. This means not just developing new policies, but also shaping shared values and tools that accommodate diverse epistemologies and publishing traditions.

Decolonizing knowledge metrics does not mean dismantling everything that came before. It means acknowledging that the current map is incomplete and working together to redraw it. When we move from gatekeeping to bridge building, we create space for multilingual, context-rooted, and mission-driven scholarship to stand alongside legacy publishing in shaping the future of global research.

MENA journals do not need permission to be relevant. They need platforms that are ready to meet them where they are and grow forward together.