Review of science journals shows strengths and weaknesses

Of the 22 journals in the mathematics and science disciplines evaluated by a review committee of the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), three were recommended for removal from the accredited list of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET).

Five were recommended to be invited to join the Scientific Electronic Library Online South Africa (SciELO SA) and seven were not endorsed for inclusion on this index. Seven were recommended for inclusion on the SciELO SA platform, provided that they implement an open-access model.

Three journals were already listed on the SciELO SA platform.

This was revealed in the recently-released Report on Grouped Peer Review of Scholarly Journals in Mathematics and Science.

The inclusion of journals in these indices means that articles published in them earn the academics or their universities government subsidies. The report is the 12th in a series of discipline-grouped evaluations of South African scholarly journals.

The intention is for all scholarly journals published in South Africa to be subjected to independent, multiple peer review, as part of a quality-assurance process initiated by ASSAf.

The quality-assurance process is a precursor to the identification of journal titles to be loaded on to the open-access platform, SciELO SA.

“Only open-access journals of sufficiently high quality will be included in this fully indexed, free-online, multinational platform, now also directly featured on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (WoS) portal,” said the report.

Review findings

It indicated that the main purpose of the ASSAf review process is for journals to improve the quality of scholarly publication in a way that tallies with traditional scholarly practices – primarily voluntary peer review. “It is not an attempt to control these publications in any way,” explained the report.

Mahlubi Mabizela and Fhumulani Maanda from the division of higher education policy and research development at the DHET said: “Over the past few years, the open access and open science movement has intensified. The DHET has heeded the call and supports open access to quality knowledge.”

Along with the SciELO SA platform, managed by ASSAf, the DHET has recently included the Directory of Open Access Journals as one of the indexes approved for the purposes of research subsidy from published articles by academics at South African universities.

The review findings are set out below:

• ORiON, the journal of the Operations Research Society of South Africa, was recommended for continued accreditation by the DHET, but not for SciELO SA.

The report indicated that the “editor-in-chief and members of the board should improve their international standing; board members of high international reputation should be included”. The quality of the papers needs to be improved and the number of papers should be increased. The average time between submission and final publication could be shortened.

• The African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics was not recommended for continued accreditation with the DHET nor for SciELO SA.

The panel recommended that the editorial board have more representation from the African continent. “The journal should improve its website and follow the design models of other good international journals.”

• The African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development was recommended for continued DHET accreditation but not for accreditation with SciELO SA.

“The editor should strongly reconsider the issue of publishing papers of which he or other editorial board members are authors or co-authors. This constitutes a serious conflict of interest and contravenes acceptable codes of editorial practice,” the report indicated.

• The Journal for New Generation Sciences was not recommended for continued DHET accreditation nor for SciELO SA.

The panel has serious concerns about the title, composition of the editorial board, ratio between acceptance and rejection of manuscripts, impact and citation figures for published papers, and “the lack of alignment between the journal title and most of the content”, the report said.

• Annals of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History was recommended for continued DHET accreditation but not recommended for SciELO SA.

The panel noted that the journal does not align with the requisites for DHET accreditation. It conceded that the new editor has committed to most of the suggested changes and improvements which, when completed, would align the journal with the requirements for DHET accreditation.

• The Durban Natural Science Museum Novitates was not recommended for continued accreditation by the DHET nor for SciELO SA.

The panel recommended that the journal address issues including the number of annual published articles, and the high proportion of articles that emanate (with or without external co-authors) from the host institution.

The panel believed that it is imperative to expand the breadth of content of the journal geographically and subject matter-wise. Whether the journal can remain viable without these changes is a concern.

• Indago was recommended for continued DHET accreditation but not recommended for SciELO SA.

The panel recommended that the journal should address the issues that do not currently comply with the requirements for DHET accreditation.

“The panel also notes that the current editor, in response to a range of criticisms, has committed to addressing most of these issues. Once completed, such changes would align the journal with the requisites for DHET accreditation.”

Continued DHET accreditation

Below are journal titles that received recommendations for continued DHET accreditation and were recommendation for SciELO SA:



A robust process

There was criticism about the composition of editorial boards, whereby the balance between emerging and established researchers was not appropriate, or processes for the appointment and turnover of editorial board members were either absent or not reliably implemented.

Challenges related to competing with international journals. The need to attract a wider authorship from across Africa and beyond, was a recurring recommendation.

There were a few instances of weak editorial practices. Some journals were established to disseminate the research outputs of a single organisation or institution, while others aim to bring together “disparate themes in an interdisciplinary context, or to service the African science community”.

The review committee indicated that the review of these national journals occurred during the rapidly evolving landscape of scientific publishing. There was an increase in fully online publishing platforms.

This has resulted in benefits to the research community, including the speed of publication, the ease of access to published research and the globalisation of research outputs. However, this has been marred by, particularly, the scourge of ‘predatory’ publishers and journals, where profit takes precedence over publication standards.

There was agreement across the review process that all the journals that had been reviewed served a valuable purpose within their disciplines.

“In most cases, the reviewers found that the structures, systems and processes associated with the publication pipelines were robust, with sound handling systems, acceptable peer-review processes, and reliable and timeous publication schedules.”

The report said: “These reviews augur well for the health and integrity of our science system, especially the higher education sector which communicates its scholarly knowledge largely through the journals medium. These reviews uplift the reliability and integrity of our science system and that of scholarly publications.”

The report said the process is developmental, as it is iterative and interactive with the journals’ editors-in-chief.