concerning South African Other Disciplines journals
The ASSAf PRP for Other Disciplines evaluated 53 journals in the sub-groups of Geography and Population, Gender, Health, Humanities, Law, Social Sciences and Other Fields (the African Evaluation Journal and the African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure). The panel consisted of 20 scholars from different disciplines. The panel received and evaluated 170 reviews produced by national and international experts in the relevant fields. The period under review was from 2017 to 2019, with some information updated by journal editors for 2020 and 2021. In assessing the reviewers’ comments for the completion of the final consensus review outcome, panel members were sensitive to the many structural and managerial challenges that journal editors face.
The Other Disciplines group will finalise and close the cycle of evaluation of all 322 accredited South African published journals. The ASSAf peer review of journals has been motivated by a commitment to assess scholarly standards at a time when academic publishing faces numerous challenges, such as the maintenance of intellectual integrity; commercial viability in the age of open access; and predatory journal publishing. The constantly evolving indicators determining what constitutes academic excellence and rigour in diverse social and political contexts are also important considerations.
As stipulated by the ASSAf journal review guidelines, the reviewers were asked to comment on the configuration of the editorial boards and the reputation of their members in the academic community.
In most cases, the expertise of the editors was acknowledged, and it was recommended that editorial boards could potentially benefit from making the appointments of editors on a competitive basis to safeguard the quality and standing of the journals. It was apparent that many editorial boards are still grappling with the problem of a lack of diversity, not only in racial terms but also in relation to gender equality. It was clear from the reviews that the creation of genuine representivity is still a common challenge experienced by many South African journals.
Specific sub-group reviews
The Geography and Population sub-group comprised six journals in the fields of population studies, disaster management, geography and demography. Some critical ideas were expressed about the composition of the editorial boards where processes for the appointment and turnover of editorial board members were either absent or not reliably implemented.
The two journals that were reviewed in the Gender sub-group seem to publish high-quality outputs that are well aligned with international scholarly standards and have increasing international recognition.
The editorial collectives bring a range of diverse disciplinary and professional expertise that reinforces the editorial functions of the journals. Both journals publish work by emerging as well as established scholars. This approach, which enhances the growth and development of emerging scholars, was highly praised by the reviewers.
The Health sub-group included eight journals in the fields of disability, ergonomics, laboratory medicine, pharmaceutics, child health, gastroenterology, gynaecologic oncology and health review. The objectives of the journals in this sub-group varied widely. Some were established primarily as vehicles to disseminate the research outputs of a single organisation, while others aimed to include themes in an interdisciplinary context. Reviewers recommended that more papers should focus on Fourth Industrial Revolution themes within the local and regional context.
Eleven journals were reviewed in the Humanities sub-group. Some of the journals, such as Anthropology Southern Africa and the Journal of the South African Society of Archivists, focus on specific disciplines within the humanities, while others such as the Journal of Contemporary African Studies are located more broadly in the humanities disciplines. The journals are currently at various stages of development.
The quality of the contributions in this sub-group was assessed as generally of outstanding quality, with a
30
few articles of mid-range quality. This placed most of the journals in an acceptable position relative to international journals within similar or cognate fields.
The journals in the Law sub-group included a variety of journals in terms of scope, nature and discipline.
Eight journals were part of this sub-group, which included yearbooks, journals with an African and South African focus, and interdisciplinary journals such as the African Journal of Criminology and Victimology, the Journal of Law, Society and Development and the South African Journal of Bioethics and Law.
Overall, the law journals were shown to have published articles of high quality and received positive feedback. Most editors expressed their appreciation for the comprehensive feedback and suggestions for improvement that they received.
Thirteen journals were reviewed in the Social Sciences sub-group which spanned the breadth of the social sciences, with five journals located broadly in education, three journals in psychology and one journal each in political studies, social work, development studies, economics and management sciences and consumer sciences. The journals vary in origin, with some having been established by a society or research organisation and others by a university department. The stated purpose of the journals was primarily to disseminate research outputs within the field locally and/or regionally, often bringing together diverse themes within the discipline to service the African scholarly community. The complexities of the review process were compounded by the fact that the journals that were reviewed covered such a diverse range of disciplines. For this reason, the panel in this group of journals was composed of a range of experts within the fields of psychology, education, social work, development, and political studies. This was done to ensure that appropriate reviewers were sourced for each of the journals and that contextual oversight was ascertained over the final journal review reports from an expert within the relevant discipline. The only exception was the journal in the field of consumer sciences, for which reviewers were sourced from within the discipline, as discipline-specific expertise was lacking in the review panel.
The five journals were reviewed in the Other Fields category. Some are niche journals with specific areas of focus. The panel expressed concern about the delayed publication of one of these journals in 2021 and questioned the academic quality and business model of the other journal.
General recommendations
Overall, the journals that were assessed received fairly good reviews. The quality of the journals mostly varied from low to medium quality, with high and internationally equivalent quality being exceptional.
The quality of the published articles was judged to be good to excellent, and technical aspects, such as data presentation and the quality of figures, were mostly of an acceptable standard. It was noted by reviewers that the number of articles published in the various journals varied widely, often due to field-specific factors and the size of the local research community in some fields. For journals with a very narrow focus and low submission rate, the panel recommended that such journals should consider collaborating with associations within a related field or merging the journal with another journal in a related field. Furthermore, the panel encouraged the inclusion of additional scholarly features; the attraction of more international publications including contributors from beyond South Africa, as well as the deliberate inclusion of some special issues.
Many editors provided feedback in response to the final consensus reviews and welcomed the constructive critical reviews that they received. In some cases, such critical issues were anticipated, and the editors responded with the assurance that positive measures were already being undertaken to strengthen the quality of their journal.
Among the critical appraisal comments expressed by reviewers, four areas were highlighted, and the recommendations related to these areas were sent to the editorial boards of the journals. These included journal management and editorial board structures that had not changed for long periods; journals that published infrequently or intermittently; members of the editorial boards publishing or co-publishing too often in their own journal; and a less critical external peer-review process. In all these instances, the responses received from editors suggest that the journals aim to positively work towards implementing the recommendations.
The panel was provided with a table indicating which of the journals reviewed were indexed by the major international reference platforms, namely Scopus and WoS. Among the 53 journals, 21 were indexed by Scopus and four by WoS. The panel believed that, where possible, successful applications
31
to the said platforms would have a significant positive effect on the international exposure and impact of the journals.
Of the 53 journals evaluated, 43 were recommended for accreditation, seven were recommended for removal from the DHET list and three were ‘conditionally’ accepted to be retained on the DHET list.
Fifteen journals were invited to join SciELO SA, and 21 were not endorsed for inclusion on the SciELO SA platform. Eleven journals were recommended for inclusion on the SciELO SA platform on condition that the journal implements an open-access model. Six journals were already listed on the SciELO SA platform.
It is of interest to note that the reasons for journals not being recommended for inclusion on the SciELO SA platform were mostly due to delays in publication time frames. These journals were encouraged to increase their frequency of publications as a condition for being considered for inclusion in SciELO SA.
Generally, the panel experienced the review exercise as a constructive and productive process. It is inevitable in such evaluations that certain critical questions raised will not always be met with agreement from editors. It is the view of the panel, however, that the reviews were conducted in the spirit of academic collegiality to support journal editors in meeting the demands posed by a changing publishing environment during the most challenging period of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
Note: Panel members who indicated a conflict of interest, in that they were directly involved with any of the journals under review, did not contribute to the reporting or the recommendations for that journal.
32