4. Consensus Reviews of Journals in the Group
4.4 General Science
4.4.1 Annals of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History
Suggested improvements:
Consensus review: Transactions faces similar problems and challenges to any typical local journal, notwithstanding that it has a highly reputable editorial board. The low Scopus impact factor and the absence of a WoS impact factor are obvious issues. It is recommended that the editors engage with the Taylor & Francis group to ensure that the journal is indexed by WoS as soon as possible.
The journal should aim to increase the annual number of published articles. This would assist the journal in being indexed by WoS, which would further increase its visibility.
The editorial board should consider expanding the remit of the journal to cover publications from all over the world. The members of the editorial board are usually fellows of the RSSA with stature in their respective research fields, and the journal could potentially increase its impact by including invited reviews from fellows and leading scientists such as those working at NRF Centres of Excellence or in SARChI chairs.
Similarly, the journal should consider publishing special issues on specific topics, with the objective of attracting more regional authors and broadening its coverage.
The journal should embark on an advertising campaign targeting national university academic departments and libraries to increase awareness and visibility among staff and student bodies.
The journal content could be made available to a wider readership by means of e-contents and abstracts. The essay competition for schools, with the top-ranked essays being published in the journal, is an excellent feature. This could be replicated for graduate students, with the publication of papers from master’s and doctoral degrees.
Panel’s consensus view:
i. The journal should continue to be listed on the DHET-accredited list.
ii. The journal should be invited to join the SciELO SA platform should the relationship with its publishers change and it becomes open access.
iii. The journal should address the recommendations of this review.
Editing functions:
(Standing, local institutional spread, international participation)
Consensus review: Until 2019, the journal was managed by a single editor (who was also the senior curator of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History) and lacked an editorial board. Although the editor was a well-published and well-recognised entomologist, this was a cause for concern.
Sadly, the editor passed away in 2019 and has subsequently been replaced by an independent editor from the Polish Academy of Sciences.
Questionnaire:
(Editorial process-related criteria)
The journal was established in 1908 and is published annually. It is available online through the Sabinet platform at http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication/nfi_ditsong. The visit and download records were not available at the time of the review. The journal is read by users from nine countries globally, four of which are other African countries. Issues are not pre-scheduled to appear on given dates. The journal was experiencing problems in appointing service providers for layout and printing, which has led to substantial delays. The matter is being addressed. There was a four-year gap between 1942 and 1945 during the Second World War.
During the three-year review period, 20 full articles, one book review and two scientific notes were published. The number of manuscripts received was 23. No manuscripts were rejected with or without peer review. Of the 20 full articles published over three years, at least 12 of the authors had a non- South African address.
Two peer reviewers are approached to review each submitted manuscript. The selection of peer reviewers is based on a list that is kept up to date; in addition, authors are invited to make suggestions.
Peer review is not conducted in a ‘blind way’. All major issues raised by the reviewers are dealt with by the editor. Peer reviewers receive follow-up information on request. Reviewer performance is assessed informally. No database is maintained in this regard, given the comparatively small number of contributions. In 2016, 22 reviewers were used, 12 of whom had a non-South African address. The records of peer-review reports were accessibly retained. The journal takes an average of six months between receipt of a manuscript and its publication.
Prior to his death in 2019, the editor held the position for 13 years and was not appointed competitively.
The period of appointment of the editor is unspecified. There is currently no editorial or advisory board.
There are no editorial guidelines or conflict-of-interest policy. Although there is no policy in place with regard to errata, these are published if necessary. The journal publishes analytical book reviews as value-added features. About 95% of the pages in each issue represent peer-reviewed original material.
Content:
(Quality, focus, spread within domain, sample of best work in SA, enrichment features)
Consensus review: The reviewers expressed concern about the small number of articles published in each annual issue and questioned the viability of the journal in both academic and economic terms.
It was noted that most of the papers have at least one author from the host institution, but generally a good range of co-authors from other institutions. One reviewer noted that journals such as this were originally established specifically to publish work for the host institution. The quality of the articles was thought to be good, although the panel noted with some concern that submitted manuscripts are never rejected. Nevertheless, despite the rather narrow focus of the published material, the taxonomical studies were considered as representing valuable datasets, particularly for the local scientific community.
The journal reflects an adequate sample of the best work done in the country in the relevant fields.
The focus is on local and regional issues, since that is the rationale for the journal. Most the content comprises research articles, with an occasional book review or scientific note.
Essential technical features:
(English abstracts, errata, citation practice, presentation)
Consensus review: The technical (design, layout, style, copy-editing) and grammatical aspects of the published articles were generally noted to be good to excellent. Images were generally of high quality, and referencing was appropriate and consistent. One reviewer commented that the journal is attractively laid out and illustrated. There were proper abstracts in English for all articles. The journal publishes errata if necessary. The citation practice is good.
Usefulness in capacity development, and international comparability:
Consensus review: Reviewers had mixed opinions of the value of the journal to young researchers. It was noted that the highly specialised taxonomic content was not appropriate for a wider audience, and that the absence of impact metrics and altmetric indicators might make the journal less attractive to younger readers. Conversely, it was noted that a museum journal such as this could provide a useful vehicle for developing researchers and postgraduate students to publish their work.
In comparing the Annals with similar journals, it was noted that a local and highly focused journal such as this cannot compete effectively with larger international online journals. Leading international journals, particularly in taxonomy (e.g. Zootaxa, ZooKeys) are large online enterprises that might publish thousands of articles each year from across the globe.
Business aspects:
(Business-related criteria; Bibliometric assessments)
The journal is owned and published by the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History. The regular print run is 500 copies. The layout, design, technical editing and production of the journal are handled by Isteg Scientific Publications. Hard copies of the journal are distributed by the museum, and the digital issues are hosted and distributed by Sabinet. The journal does not carry advertising and is not financially sponsored.
Three institutions subscribe to the journal in hard copy, and 53 institutions to the online version. All the subscribers are organisations or institutions. Page charges may be levied on all papers on a sliding scale from 25% to 100%, although this is currently not enforced. The journal makes use of a manual system to manage its editorial workflow. All issues older than five years are free to access, while the most recent five volumes are available only to subscribers through a commercial e-publication service.
There have been no offers to purchase the journal. The Ditsong National Museum of Natural History owns the copyright to the content of the journal. There is currently no licensing agreement with authors.
The journal is accredited by DHET. There is no impact factor, and altmetric indicators have not been determined. It is mandatory to include ‘front details’ for papers and to publish English abstracts. The journal has not been independently peer reviewed.
Suggested improvements:
Consensus review: The panel recommends that the journal needs to address a range of issues to ensure its future viability. Such interventions should include broadening the range of articles and increasing both the number of issues each year and the number of articles from researchers outside the host institution.
Until recently, the journal was managed by an editor who had been in this position for 13 years and was not supported by an editorial board; this does not constitute good practice. An editorial board, if established, could consist of national and international scientists whose inputs could contribute to strengthening the standing of the journal.
If the new editor wishes to refine the policies and quality of the journal and its peer-review process, ASSAf’s Code of Best Practice in Scholarly Journal Publishing, Editing and Peer Review would be a valuable resource to consult. The editor might also consider working towards an impact factor, performance analytics and indicators.
The scope of the journal should be expanded. The journal should also consider open access for visibility.
The journal does not consistently publish on time and does not adhere to its stipulated periodicity. This is a cause for concern and must be addressed.
The lack of an editorial board, and the high proportion of articles that include an author from the host institution, are both incompatible with current DHET specifications.
Panel’s consensus view:
i. The journal should continue to be listed on the DHET-accredited list, on condition that the suggested improvements are implemented by the end of 2022.
ii. The journal should not be invited to join the SciELO SA platform.
iii. The panel notes that, in its current form and with its current mode of management and production, this journal does not meet the requirements for DHET accreditation.
iv. However, the panel also notes that the new editor is committed to implementing most of the suggested changes and improvements which, when completed, would align the journal with the requisites for DHET accreditation.
4.4.2 Durban Natural Science Museum Novitates