Journals — the wrong model for Africa?

Giving research results credibility and visibility has traditionally been undertaken by academic, peerreviewed, regularly published, specialist journals. Within the academically conservative countries of sub-Saharan Africa the research communities comply with this model, and endeavour to produce journals to match the high-impact publications from the developed world. Unfortunately the majority of journals published in Africa do a disservice to the research they contain – they are poorly produced, have low visibility (even within their own communities), and struggle to survive. It is not uncommon for a paper to be accepted but not published for many months, or even years, because the journal does not have the funds to publish. There are also many cases of poor editorial management and non-existent communication – for example, authors not knowing that their paper has been accepted – or even published! Editorial standards vary, peer review is not always honest or reliable, and many journals attempt to have both ‘local’ and ‘international’ relevance, resulting in a muddled editorial focus. Many of the titles are multidisciplinary, which requires a large editorial board and referee list – both scarce commodities in a region with a small academic community. These problems are certainly not unique to developing countries, but are certainly more common there. From my own work, I estimate that approximately 1,200 peerreviewed journals are published in the 52 countries within the African continent; the majority come from Nigeria and South Africa (about 400 each). Of these, only 27 titles are listed in the ISI indices – of which 25 are from South Africa. It is very difficult to see how the low visibility and respect (national as well as international) for the majority of journals from this continent could ever be improved. The vast majority of the journals are ‘self-published’ by their parent body, and this truly does mean ‘self-published’: frequently the journal editor is expected to undertake all the publishing functions (editorial, production, marketing and sales, distribution, planning and strategy, etc.), with little support (perhaps a part-time secretary), and little (or no) funding. The owning organization often will not allow changes or innovation without extensive consultation and debate, which leads practices to stagnate, and requires an unreasonable amount of effort to make any changes or improvements. The focus of most journals is firmly on the editorial activities, with scant regard for the subsequent publishing processes; thus the journal is handicapped by limited experience or knowledge of publishing and little or no investment in the publishing function. At the same time, most journals look to the Western model and are expected to be self-financing – obtaining money from subscriptions and advertising to pay for publication – which is, in most cases, an unrealistic goal. As a secondary problem, the printing industry in many of the African countries is poorly resourced and combines an expensive service with poor-quality printing, finishing, and paper. As a result, many journals simply do not look professional and authoritative. There are also few companies offering technical (XMLbased) typesetting, so that e-files for indices such as PubMedCentral are all but impossible to create; there are few individuals with sufficient knowledge, money and time to seek alternatives such as in-house software, or outsourcing to another region of the world. Why, then, are there so many journals when there seems so little chance of success? The research and education communities continue slavishly to follow the Western model of academic promotion based on publishing in journals; universities therefore continue to launch new (ineffective) journals to raise their own profile, and authors and editors continue to participate in order to receive the kudos of being associated with their local journal. Meanwhile, Journals – the wrong model for Africa? 311