As per editors' email discussion.

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>wasei eigo</gloss>

I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of "gairaigo", "kango", "wago", etc. in academic sources but they don't make particularly good glosses.
--
I've always assumed [expl] tags aren't necessary when the entry only has explanatory glosses (with some exceptions).

It's used academically, though. And both current glosses 
should really be tagged as [expl].

GG5, 中辞典, etc.

I agree with Robin; I think a Japanese term needs to be fairly well accepted in English to have the romanized form as the gloss. "okonomiyaki" would make the grade, but "wasei eigo" is not on the radar.
I see the JEs say things like "English word or phrase coined in Japan" (GG5). That's not true - the point is that they're not real English.

@@ -16,2 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>wasei eigo</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">Japanese word constructed of elements from one or more English terms</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese word constructed of elements from one or more English terms</gloss>
+<gloss>pseudo-English word or phrase coined in Japan</gloss>

I'm not sure the Japanese term is common enough in English to warrant including it as a gloss.
I think romanized Japanese glosses should be avoided as much as possible.