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.
Discussion
27 Thoughts on "Guest Post — Invisible by Design? Rethinking Global Indexing to Include MENA Journals"
In 2020, with the support of the Egyptian Knowlege Bank (EKB), Clarivate launched the Arabic Citation Index (ARCI), the first Arabic-language citation index. You can learn more about it here, http://arcival.ekb.eg/?page=about.html
Thank you for sharing the link, Mary. I will surely look into it.
The post by Maryan Sayab serves as a wake-up call for global inclusivity in the field of scholarly publishing for the MENA region, which, in my estimation, boasts some of the brightest minds in international publishing. I am sure publishing institutions in the MENA region should collaborate and build their resilience around a regional alliance, as well as establish a sustainable publishing infrastructure for the region that can be competitive.
The MENA region indeed holds immense intellectual potential, and I couldn’t agree more that collaboration and regional solidarity are key. Building resilient, context-aware infrastructure that reflects our strengths (rather than merely mirroring external systems) is the way forward. I hope your comment inspires more voices to join this much-needed dialogue!
This post is a masterpiece of well researched work cutting across different constraints suffered by visibility of papers from especially low income countries.
One critical factor affecting papers from this categories of authors is the cost of publishing. Most qualitative papers from low income countries most often ends up being published in invincible platforms because of poor funding.
It is high time that platforms like Elsevier an co have a review of their article publication cost to encourage these set of people.
Special thanks to Maryan Sayab for the update.
Thank you so much, Dr. Bello. I strongly agree that the cost of publishing remains a critical barrier for researchers in low-income settings, often forcing valuable work into invisibility despite its quality and relevance. I truly hope conversations like this push the larger platforms to rethink accessibility and equity in scholarly communication. Grateful for your feedback and for adding this vital perspective to the discussion.
Well researched and written!
I agree with Dr. Bello R S.
I very much like the phrase “There is no need to replicate other journals, but we can show up differently.” The main reason behind that is to continue promoting more rigorous research and to produce impactful findings through publications in local languages for the sake of humanity. This idea should not be neglected, but we also have to thrive and academically compete with renowned journals by collaborating with experienced publishing institutions with the expectation of bringing us to that level one day.
Thank you for this thoughtful reflection. Well, thriving doesn’t have to mean copying; it’s about growing with purpose. Collaborations grounded in shared goals and respect for local knowledge can truly elevate our place in global scholarship.
Thanks, Dr. Maryam, for providing additional insightful thoughts. I totally agree with that.
Sure! Here’s a more natural, human-like version of that comment:
This piece sheds light on a crucial issue, the underrepresentation of MENA journals isn’t due to lack of quality, but because of structural and systemic barriers. It’s a powerful reminder that we need more inclusive and culturally sensitive indexing systems to ensure global research truly reflects global voices. A much needed and timely perspective.
Considering that “there is no need to replicate other journals, but we can show up differently” by developing our own system and journals. Facing the challenges and provide realistic solutions that fulfill the need of the development of our MENA communities. It is not simple formula and needs a lot of hard work from all parties to get it works for the MENA regions. We look forward for the day we work together to develop a MENA system that fits not only our journals development needs but development of the Human Resources too who build the system and maintain it running sustainably.
Well said; building a system that truly fits our regional needs requires more than technical fixes; it needs collective commitment, long-term vision, and investment in people who will carry it forward. I fully share your hope for a collaborative MENA-led approach that’s both sustainable and empowering.
A great article on an important topic! “Invisible by Design?” challenges us to rethink how we quantify and share information worldwide. This large group of scientific journals from the Middle East and North Africa should shine on international research as “innovators” with unique contributions, not “imitators”. Many thanks to Maryam Sayab for these insightful analyses and precise recommendations to make scholarly publishing more egalitarian and inclusive!
Thank you so much, Dr. Saeed, for your generous words. I like your frame for MENA journals as innovators rather than imitators.
This article challenges how global indexing systems often reward conformity over contextual relevance. The indexing systems may leave behind high-quality journals from regions like MENA.
In Indonesia, we’ve seen strong community-led efforts. Editors, journal managers, reviewers, librarians, and researchers work together to meet international standards. But we must remember: inclusion should never compromise research integrity.
It’s not about lowering the bar. It’s about co-designing systems that recognize diverse publishing traditions while upholding ethical rigor.
True inclusion begins with mutual respect, not top-down audits. The global scholarly community should take note.
Thank you, Abdul, your reflections truly echo the spirit of the article. The example from Indonesia reminds us that grassroots collaboration can drive powerful change. I completely agree: it’s not about lowering standards, but about reshaping them through shared respect and recognition of diverse strengths.
Absolutely agree – the MENA region holds tremendous intellectual potential, and as you rightly pointed out, collaboration and regional solidarity are crucial to unlocking it. Investing in resilient, contextually relevant infrastructure that draws on our unique strengths, rather than replicating external models, is essential for sustainable progress. Thank you for your thoughtful post, Maryam. I truly hope it encourages more voices to engage in this vital and timely dialogue.
Thank you, Raman. I hope this conversation keeps growing and brings even more voices into shaping a future that reflects our realities and aspirations.
This is where the importance of partnership comes in, such as the Asian Council of Science Editors, which promotes the quality of journals. Also, a two-way dialogue to address the issue is important to strengthen the editorial team in under-indexed journals. Of course, it is also important to implement a methodology for multilingualism in countries where English is not the primary language and perhaps this can be developed with the help of stakeholders and organizations.
Absolutely, Jeanne, partnerships like those fostered by the Asian Council of Science Editors are key to creating sustainable change. Strengthening under-indexed journals requires both collaboration and context-driven strategies, especially around multilingualism.
This article insightfully captures the structural and systemic issues that continue to limit the global presence of research from the MENA region and other underrepresented areas. Beyond technical barriers, one of the biggest challenges remains the high cost of publishing, which often forces authors from low-income countries to publish in lesser-known or invisible platforms despite the quality of their work. What stood out to me is the call to design inclusion from the ground up—not by imitating existing models, but by embracing our unique academic ecosystems, languages, and locally meaningful research. At the same time, we must also build pathways for collaboration with established publishing networks, so that local journals can grow sustainably and gain the recognition they deserve on global platforms.
Dr Sayeb forgot to mention The Index Medicas of the Easter Mediterranean (IMEMR) http://www.emro.who.int which started in early 1980s and still going on with the aim of indexing all health sciences journals in the region and the Global Index Medicus maintained by WHO/HQ aiming at bringing together all the journals Indices in all WHO Regions that are not in MEDLINE.
Thank you, Raman. I hope this conversation to be useful for every one.
The article by Maryam Sayab is highly commendable and well thought out. It not only identifies the problems, but also suggests remedial measures, which makes it very unique.
My observations may be slightly out of context, but I would like to share my thoughts regarding the roadblocks created by stringent journal accreditation criteria in the Indian context. Similar to the Algerian Scientific Journal Platform (ASJP), Egypt’s Supreme Council of Universities, and Iran’s Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, India’s University Grants Commission (UGC) has, for long, had its own criteria for journal accreditation. Only recently, the UGC has loosened the noose on its previous mandatory accreditation criteria. Although this has its pros and cons, it is nevertheless a welcome relief and allows the Indian journals more flexibility in setting their own norms and standards and competing with other globally reputed journals.
I completely agree with Prof. Maryam Sayab on this very important issue. 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 should work together to co-design a regional and national indexing system.
