| Autor: |
Anthony C Diala, Nejat Hussein |
| Jazyk: |
Afrikaans<br />German<br />English<br />Dutch; Flemish |
| Rok vydání: |
2023 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 26 (2023) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1727-3781 |
| DOI: |
10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15778 |
| Popis: |
South Africa's research incentive system rewards faculty members and affiliates for publishing in outlets that are "accredited" by the Department of Higher Education and Training. This arguably perverse incentive makes academic research a potentially aggressive numbers game. It is compounded by factors such as undue delay in peer review, difficulty in securing expert evaluators, and poor understanding of who constitutes a "peer". Despite the "publish or perish" pressure on researchers and the prohibition of the parallel submission of manuscripts by many journals, there is negligible research on publishing problems in South African journals. Informed by a literature survey, editorial experience and conversations with colleagues, this article seeks a dialogue about these problems, which it characterises as a tsetse fly perched on the scrotum. On the one hand, the current incentive system commodifies outputs and diverts attention from building knowledge with socially responsive research to building the financial coffers of universities and authors. On the other hand, inappropriate editorial interpretations of a "peer" and the gratis nature of peer evaluation encumber the publishing process. We argue that this situation erodes academic excellence, encourages the growth of predatory journals, and potentially harms national development. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
