investment in knowledge….producing new interest

Butler-Adam, John

doi:10.17159/sajs.2015/a0117

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…an increase which has been ascribed to the implementation of a new funding framework for South African universities (Butler-Adam, 2015), as discussed in Section 2.4.2. The combined effect of an increase in publication units per researcher and levels of co-authorship indicates that collaborations involving South African academics are multiplying, a statement that is supported by recent work on patterns of co-authorship with international research teams (Sooryamoorthy, 2015;Pouris and Ho, 2014).…”

Section: No Of Articesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…from 6,660 in 2004 to 15,316 in 2014(Butler-Adam, 2015, as shown inFigure 12. Interestingly the divergence between total article counts and publication units has also increased over the period due to the growing numbers of authors per publication (see Section 2.3) and hence the increasing extent of discounting due to the DHET's approach of proportional measurement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recognising individual contributions to collaborative research: limitations of proportional publication counts and proposals for alternatives

Valizadeh¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report was undertaken to determine whether researchers in South Africa who publish within large consortia are appropriately recognised in the South African context, including the systems by which authors are evaluated and rewarded, with specific reference to multi-authored publications. The study sought to establish the current practices in South Africa and compare these with international best practice. Lastly the report provides a number of recommendations to improve this aspect of the current system.

show abstract

Section: No Of Articesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognising individual contributions to collaborative research: limitations of proportional publication counts and proposals for alternatives

Valizadeh¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even though African intellectuals may be tempted to be incorporated into leading publishers' profiles, such as Elsevier's proposed mega OA journal to showcase African research [38], African intellectuals should perhaps unite to create a unique digital OA publishing portfolio that unites local expertise, local academics and local leadership. The use of university screening committees that ensure suitable criteria for publication requirements that then decides publication-related funding, as occurs in South Africa (Butler-Adam, 2015), may be a model worth following in other African countries. The results are already visible, with South African scholars showing a boom in publications and increased collaborations in indexed (Scopus) journals (Chiware and Becker, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Africa’s challenges in the OA movement: risks and possibilities

Silva¹,

Adjei

Owusu-Ansah

et al. 2019

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the status of the open access (OA) movement on the African continent, and if there is any financial or moral exploitation by dominant “foreign” world powers. OA provided the African intellectual community with a tool to prove its academic prowess and an opportunity to display cultural and intellectual independence. OA publishing is prone to abuse, and some in Africa have sought to exploit the OA boom to profit from non-academic activity rather than use this tool to glorify Africa’s image and diversity on the global intellectual stage. These issues are explored in detail in the paper. Design/methodology/approach The authors broadly assessed literature that is related to the growth and challenges associated with OA, including the rise of OA mega journals, in Africa. Findings African OA journals and publishers have to compete with established non-African OA entities. Some are considered “predatory”, but this Jeffrey Beall-based classification may be erroneous. Publishing values that African OA publishers and journals aspire to should not equal those published by non-African publishing entities. Africa should seek solutions to the challenges on that continent via Africa-based OA platforms. The budding African OA movement is applauded, but it must be held as accountable as any other OA journal or publisher. Originality/value African scholars need to reassess the “published in Africa” OA image.

show abstract

investment in knowledge….producing new interest

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Recognising individual contributions to collaborative research: limitations of proportional publication counts and proposals for alternatives

Recognising individual contributions to collaborative research: limitations of proportional publication counts and proposals for alternatives

Africa’s challenges in the OA movement: risks and possibilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About