jump to navigation

Quality Assurance

Incentives to editors

The Shuttleworth Foundation commissioned ASSAf to investigate the question: what incentives can be used to improve the quality and accountability of scholarly editorial work in South Africa, and how can they best be provided?

After the appointment of a panel (chaired by Professor James Bull of UCT)  by the Academy’s Committee on Scholarly Publishing in South Africa (CSPiSA), the investigation proceeded involving a number of questionnaires, meetings with focus groups, panel meetings and a consultative session at the third annual National Scholarly Editors’ Forum.

The study investigated:

The final report still needs to be approved by the Committee on Scholarly Publication in South Africa in October 2009.

Peer Review Panels

The periodic, grouped, quality assurance-directed peer review of South African research and scholarly periodicals is functioning analogously to the quality audits of the CHE/HEQC, and focuses on:  the quality of editorial and review processes; fitness of purpose; positioning in the global cycle of new and old journals listed and indexed in databases; financial sustainability; and scope and size issues.  The ASSAf Panels carrying out the reviews each comprise 6-8 experts, at least half of whom are not directly drawn from the areas concerned. The methodology comprises a detailed (mainly logistic) questionnaire sent to the editors, direct multiple, independent peer review of the journals in terms of content, and a panel meeting to review these materials and all other available evidence in order to make appropriate findings and recommendations.  The reports with recommendations will be considered by the ASSAf Committee on Scholarly Publishing and released to the publishers and editors of the journals concerned, as well as other stakeholders such as national associations, the Departments of Science and Technology and of Higher Education and Training, the CHE/HEQC, the NRF and HESA, and all research-active institutions.

Book study

The book study has been conducted by a Consensus Panel chaired by Prof Wieland Gevers; its completed Report was peer reviewed and approved for release by the Academy Council in June 2009. It is focused on the following issues:

  1. How closely do (scholarly) book chapters correspond to original, peer-reviewed, editorially selected journals articles as “research outputs” as defined in the DoE policy?
  2. How much “re-publication” or “pre-publication” of substantive journal article content occurs in book chapters?
  3. How does peer review as typically carried out in the case of books differ from “gold standard” peer review methodology used by journal editors?
  4. How well do books achieve the defined purposes of research outputs?
  5. In terms of impact analysis e.g. citation analysis; book reviews; sales and re-printings; any other measures?
  6. How much should book chapters be “weighted” in terms of the DoE policy framework? ( Journal article = 1.0)
  7. How are the “target audiences” of scholarly books to be identified, as DoE policy is that the target of accredited book chapters should be peers and “other knowledge producers”?
  8. How many book chapters are really not “original, fully described additions to existing knowledge” but rather authoritative analyses, syntheses, and/or consolidations, in effect or potentially assisting others to map out new routes to new knowledge?
  9. Does on line publishing of books (already) enhance dissemination and access, and is the (print) book publishing route a weakened, or less effective form of knowledge dissemination relative to the journal route?
  10. How do different disciplinary areas compare in their (volume) use of books as opposed to journals, as selected standard dissemination routes?
  11. What are the time delays in book as opposed to journal publishing?
  12. What are the trends for the future role(s) of books as vehicles for thedissemination of scholarly knowledge?