Perish the Thought
-
academic publishing in South Africa
Christina Scott
An investigation by the Academy of Science of South Africa is injecting some
much-needed oxygen into the rarefied world of academic publishing.
A detailed report - online at www.assaf.co.za
- paints a distressing picture of a bureaucratic system at the Department of
Education which recognises no difference between world-class publications and
journals which are barely read and seldom cited, with three-digit print runs and
no internet presence.
Under the present system, cash-strapped universities qualify for R84,000 in
government subsidies every single time their researchers publish an article in a
long line of peer-reviewed journals officially recognised by the government -
255 at last tally.
Unfortunately, international systems to monitor journal influence and the
lifespan of articles as they crop up in work by other academics around the globe
currently recognise fewer than twenty-five South African research journals from
this long, long list.
A remarkable number of the journals on the government list appear to be
in-house efforts, submitted, criticised and edited by staff and students from a
small pool of academics. A varsity can claim to be a world leader, based on its
publishing track record, but a closer look reveals that many authors are being
published by colleagues in the same building. The scariest figure in a report
crammed with numbers may be this: a third of the government-accredited journals
have simply never had an article worth quoting by their international
counterparts. It's not that the journals had a bad year, because the
investigators trawled back through fourteen years of data.
According to Adi Paterson of the Department of Science and Technology, which
commissioned the Academy investigation, the report "raises questions about
the integration of South African knowledge production in the international
setting." Another way of putting it would be: if the Mail and Guardian can
go online, why can't their more academic cousins in the publishing industry?
Particularly when the system requires that the PhD writers, the anonymous peer
reviewers and professorial editors do it for the love of knowledge?
Not everyone is convinced that a problem exists which needs to be solved. Dr
Isaac Mazonde, deputy director of research and development at the University of
Botswana, argues in favour of a two-track approach. "It is not helpful to
compare apples with oranges," he points out. Mazonde's argument is that
internationally branded journals are all very well, but there's also a place for
less status-conscious workhorse journals, the Pep Stores of the ivory towers,
which are tied to the development needs of the region in which they operate. If
nothing else, such "no-name brand" journals encourage struggling local
researchers who believe - with considerable evidence - that premier
English-language journal editors from the UK and North America harbour an innate
distrust of outsider scientists, unless they're given the Good Housekeeping seal
of approval by teaming up with American or British colleagues.
Not all of the Academy report is depressing. In medicine, many South African
research doctors have reached and maintained global standards. Geologists stood
their rocky ground against international competition. The diverse South African
Journal of Science, which covers everything from the Little Foot ape-man
skeleton to the pine weevil threat chewing through the forestry industry, also
did well.
At the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, founded just after the
end of the Anglo-Boer War, staff seemed quietly pleased with their score,
particularly with the high percentage of foreign authors who publish in their
pages. "The Journal likes to think it is a giant in Africa, although it is
a dwarf in the veterinary world!" said editor Joop Boomker.
What now? The Academy panel, led by Professor Wieland Gevers, has not
advocated closing down the long list of journals. It has suggested that the
Department of Education ease its stranglehold on the entire process, allowing
for more input from other interested parties. Nor has the Academy called for an
end to the subsidies: the money may sound great, calculated on a rand-per-word
basis, but some of the data can take a decade or more to compile, by experts who
spent a decade or so to gain at least three degrees.
Instead, the report calls for subsidies to be "taxed", so that a
small portion of the money flows to the journal editors and publishers in order
to make improvements such as going online. In this globalised world, the Academy
notes, there is no place for a system that financially punishes international
collaborations by awarding only a fraction of the subsidy to papers partly
authored outside South Africa.
High profile fraud, reluctantly confirmed by scientific journals overseas,
has recently dented their glittering appearance. Some private journals are
apparently intimidating academics - working at public universities, with
taxpayer-financed research, and results of importance to the world - into
embargoed silence while they shape lucrative niche publishing empires. The
editors of two respected publications, the British Medical Journal and The
Lancet, say many first-world medical journals have decayed into
information-laundering operations for multinational pharmaceutical companies
with big advertising budgets.
So now is probably an ideal time to offer South African academics some
additional publishing muscle. "We have to strengthen local journals,"
says Professor Dan Ncayiyana, editor of the South African Medical Journal.
"That is where our researchers will get the best reception."
More information:
 www.assaf.co.za
|
