The articles in the Open Journal of Geology are explicitly not meant to establish new names; they all cite earlier works, mostly the following, as having already done that.
Malkani M.S. 2014a. Titanosaurian sauropod dinosaurs from the Latest Cretaceous of Pakistan. In Abstract Volume of 2nd symposium of International Geoscience Program 608 (IGCP 608) “Cretaceous Ecosystem of Asia and Pacific”, September 04-06, Tokyo, Japan, 108-111.
That does not count as published. ICZN:
"Article 9. What does not constitute published work
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:
9.10. materials issued primarily to participants at meetings (e.g. symposia, colloquia, congresses, or workshops), including abstracts and texts of presentations or posters;"
The names proposed there were described at more length in the following work, which can be downloaded from ResearchGate (and nowhere else):
Malkani, M.S. (2015) Dinosaurs, Mesoeucrocodiles, Pterosaurs, New Fauna and Flora from Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Information Release No. 823, 1-32.
I doubt that counts as published either. (The electronic version does not: it does not contain any evidence of having been registered in ZooBank. I doubt there's a paper version that can be acquired other than by walking into the Geological Survey of Pakistan.) But even if it does, the names in it still aren't made valid thereby. The reason is ICZN Art. 16.1
"Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new."
That isn't done there (or in the articles in the Open Journal of Geology for that matter), instead the abstract from 2014a is cited, and that work does not count as published. Game Over theme of Super Mario Land
up until the time somebody publishes the names anew, claiming they're new, in an available publication.
The DOI has nothing to do with any of that, BTW; it's not mentioned anywhere in the Code.