During the launch meeting of the NSEF, participants supported ASSAf and the CSPiSA in taking the lead in the implementation of a globally unique system of quality assurance for the country’s journals that are accredited and subsidised by DHET.
This system took the form of ‘broad’ discipline-grouped peer review carried out by purpose-appointed peer review panels (PRPs) drawn from the ranks of researchers and experienced scholars in and around the fields concerned in each case, as well as persons with practical (technical/professional) publishing experience.
The process and review criteria comprise a thorough evaluation of questionnaires completed by the respective editors, and three independent reviews of individual journals by peers, solicited and on receipt synthetically ‘anonymised’ according to
the criteria by the PRP concerned. At the completion of the peer-review process, the panels concerned make recommendations for approval and open-domain publication by ASSAf. Particular attention is paid to reaching agreement on recommendations in respect of:
(a) an invitation to the publisher/editor to join the Scientific Electronic Library Online – South Africa (SciELO SA) platform (See section 4 below);
(b) a recommendation to the DHET on accreditation in its list of non-indexed South African journals (See ‘Note’ and section 5 below);
(c) if not recommended, suggestions for improvement that if successfully implemented would make it possible on re-review to issue an invitation and/
or make a recommendation for DHET listing;
(d) suggestions for improvement or enhanced function, generally.
[Note: The DHET maintains a list of South African journals that meet the criteria set out in its research outputs subsidisation policy; there are currently 276 locally published accredited scholarly journals on this list (in total there are 320 accredited South African journals which includes the journals listed on other accredited indexes). The updated list is released in January each year and includes journals listed in the following indexes: Web of Science (WoS) (previously ISI), IBSS, titles at Level 2 of the so-called Norwegian list, SciELO SA, and Scopus, as well as many local journals that are accredited by the department itself using a variety of approaches (to be discussed in detail below). From year-to-year, South African journals still appearing on the above approved indexes are automatically accredited; the DHET does not participate in any way in the processes for inclusion of journals onto these approved indices (locally or internationally). South African journals which do not achieve inclusion in any of these indexes must continue to meet the criteria for accreditation in the DHET list – to this end, the DHET periodically samples journals to assess if they continue to meet the criteria.
ASSAf also maintains a database of South African journals (the A-Z database). The A-Z database includes not only the South African-accredited journals, but also journals listed in other international indexes not on the DHET approved list. The database has 320 journals including 70 journals indexed in SciELO SA, 42 in IBSS and 133 in Scopus.]
A total of 145 journals were peer reviewed by ASSAf PRPs between the period 2010 and 2014, 19 journals were reviewed under the grouping of Agricultural and Related Basic Life Sciences in 2010; 12 under the Social Sciences and Related Fields grouping in 2010; 23 in the Religion, Theology and Related Fields grouping in 2013;
36 in the Health Sciences and Related Medical Fields heading in 2014; 24 in the Law and Related Legal Fields grouping in 2014; 31 in the Humanities I: Literature group (Classics, Literature and Languages) in 2014; and 16 journals in Architecture, Built Environment and Engineering in 2018; and Humanities II: Visual & Performing Arts with ten journals (http://research.assaf.org.za/).
There are two journal groups that are currently still under review, including Communications and Information Science with 15 journals. The reviews took place in 2016 and editors were asked to provide information for the review period from 2013 to 2015. The remaining five groups include: Economics & Business Management with 28 journals; Politics, History & Philosophy with 25 journals; Education with 17 journals; Mathematics & Natural Science with 22 journals; and Other Disciplines and Multidisciplinary with 32 journals: the reviews for these groups will take place from 2018 onwards.
ASSAf was mandated by the DHET to review small numbers of titles, from a variety of disciplines, put forward for accreditation in ad hoc peer reviews. Eighty-three journals were reviewed in such peer-review processes, adapted from the discipline- grouped panel reviews, between the years 2010 and 2015: a total of 31 journals were not recommended for accreditation and 52 were not recommended for SciELO SA. Some of the latter were nevertheless accredited by the DHET as the final arbiter; for example, five journals were not recommended in 2012 but were added to the DHET list in 2013, while four journals were not recommended in 2013, but were added to the list in 2014.
The A-Z database and the journal peer reviews have revealed interesting variations in the use of article-processing charges (APCs), also known as publication fees or page charges, by locally published journals. Of the 320 journals in the database, 115 journals charge APCs, 145 do not, and there is no information on charges for 60 journals. The APCs range from R80 per page to R6 000 per paper.
There are 91 journals published by commercial publishers including AOSIS, Elsevier, Juta, NISC, Routledge, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley.
Of the 320 journals on ASSAf’s list, 306 are currently active while 15 journals have either been officially discontinued, or there is no information about the journal on the journal’s website, or it was last published three or more years ago.
[Note: The qualitative results of the 145 journal reviews conducted by ASSAf*
have been compared with the results of the new ASSAf-commissioned quantitative study of all accredited local journals over a ten-year period conducted by CREST and presented in its concise version as Chapter 5 of this second ASSAf Report on research publishing in SA. The degree of consistency of the qualitative review outcomes with the mainly quantitative bibliometric approach is assessed in Appendix 1of this report.]
In April 2017, the Ethiopian Academy of Sciences published a report on National Journal Evaluation and Accreditation: A Strategy for Standardising the Rating of Scholarly Performance in Ethiopia whereby they acknowledge that developing countries such as Ethiopia can only survive in today‘s highly competitive globalised world if they ensure production of a skilled, competent and professional workforce that can lead such an economic and social transformation in the right direction.
In this regard, the country‘s HEIs, as well as other research institutions, should play a leading role by conducting high-quality scientific research of national relevance in diverse fields, and by disseminating critically reviewed, high-quality research
outputs in large quantities. One of the well-established means of assuring high- quality research and the outputs thereof is to conduct periodic and sustained evaluation of the research dissemination platforms, notably scientific journals, using objective criteria. The Ethiopian methodology for evaluating the journals was based on the ASSAf process and is in line with the South African recommendations made in the ASSAf 2006 Report1.