As a global infrastructure for knowledge dissemination based on good publishing practices, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) must navigate a difficult tension: maintaining rigorous global standards without reinforcing colonial power imbalances. This presentation interrogates the politics of classification (Bowker & Star, 2000) within open knowledge infrastructures, focusing on how standardized criteria can inadvertently create barriers for journals in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), leading to epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007). I’ll present the DOAJ indexing criteria as a case of the complex process of ‘infrastructuring’ inclusive open access. DOAJ is not a static technical platform but a living infrastructure co-constructed and maintained by a diverse global community. As such, DOAJ is in a constant state of change: journals are added immediately upon acceptance and removed regularly when they no longer meet the required standards. Beyond formal review, DOAJ also listens to its user community, responding to concerns by investigating journals or publishers flagged through public discourse or internal monitoring. In this way, DOAJ functions not only as an index but as a responsive system shaped by the practices and trust of its global community. The history of DOAJ criteria demonstrates that defining and promoting best practices in OA is not a one-time design challenge, but a continuous, reflexive process.
