Khulisa Journals Communication | October 2025

[Ina Smith]

Dear Khulisa Journal Editors and Managers,

It is great to have a chance to quickly check in with you today! 

NSEF-meeting 25-26 Aug 2025

ASSAf had an excellent and highly successful NSEF meeting during which we addressed numerous issues. It was also a huge privilege to meet some of our editors in person on Day 2!  Susan Veldsman, Director Scholarly Publishing, had the opportunity to reflect on what the Scholarly Publishing Programme accomplished over the past year. It is such a privilege to be part of this unit, under Susan's leadership!  

We hope you had the opportunity to bring the  ASSAf Statement on the Recognition of the Work of Editors and Peer Reviewers of Academic Journals and Books in South Africa (2024) to the attention of your respective journal owners/Editorial Boards/Funders. This document is only one step to bring about change in the way we conduct scholarly publishing in SA, but also globally.

Khulisa Journals was also represented. Prof Wian Erlank, Editor of the Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PELJ), spoke about the many opportunities, risks, and ethical considerations involved in using Artificial Intelligence (AI) as part of the editorial workflow process, something we should all be aware of. Diamond Open Access journals - where neither the reader or the author pay any fees - have been discussed, and is becoming the ideal. Preprints, the work of the Publications Quality Framework, POPIA, preprints, recruiting and mentoring early-career researchers, and succession planning for Editors-in-Chief were among other important issues discussed. 

Access the recordings and presentations from the NSEF here.

Welcome to the South African Journal of Animal Science (SAJAS)!

We would like to welcome Dr Megan North, Editor of SAJAS, and the journal itself, to Khulisa Journals! It is a privilege to host SAJAS, and we are looking forward to work with Dr North and team to grow this journal even further! Access SAJAS here. Please visit the journal, and see what they do differently, and learn how to further improve your journal.

I have also just received note from Dr North that SAJS has passed the evaluation process positively and is now indexed in the ICI Journals Master List database for 2024. This list is an indexing/assessment database of scientific journals operated by Index Copernicus. Journals are evaluated according to many criteria (around 41 main parametric criteria) covering things like editorial standards & ethics, digitalisation (online availability, DOIs, metadata), internationalisation (authors/reviewers from foreign countries), stability (frequency, regular issues), and impact (citations, inclusion in Scopus/Web of Science if applicable). This list is a legitimate indicator of journal quality, beyond just raw citation, useful for many researchers/institutions, especially in countries or disciplines underrepresented in the so-called "elite" databases.

Many efforts were made by this journal to get included in as many trusted and quality indexes possible.

SAJAS is the 18^th SciELO SA journal being hosted on Khulisa Journals!



Fully utilising OJS

There are so many functionalities not fully utilised by us, as part of using OJS. And I know your time as editors are limited.

But - I would like to start hosting Khulisa Lunch Hour sessions on Tuesday afternoons between 12-1, twice a month, to demo and share with you some best practices in brief, using OJS. I will send a calendar invite, and you are most welcome to attend/not to attend. Completely optional!  The sessions will also be recorded. The first two sessions will be as follows:

Tuesday 16 Sept 12-1: Challenges regarding peer-review and how AI can possibly assist as part of the review process
Tuesday 30 Sept 12-1: Communicating with your users and using your journal site as a proper website 

These sessions will be targeted at the 18 Khulisa Journals, and the groups will be small. Interaction would be most welcome, as well as any questions you might have/best practices and ideas you would like to share. Let's use these sessions to brainstorm and support one another!

Peer-review Week

Next week is Peer-review Week, celebrated globally! See https://peerreviewweek.net/

Some ASSAf resources, should you want to host or mobilise more peer-reviewers in support of your journal:

• Behind the scenes of Peer Review (SAJS, 2021)
• How to Peer Review for a Scholarly Journal (SAJS, 2022)
• Peer Review in Scholarly Journals (SAJS, 2023)
• What every peer-reviewer should know about peer-review (SAJS, 2024)
• PKP OJS School Becoming a Reviewer https://pkpschool.sfu.ca/courses/becoming-a-reviewer/

Food for thought ..... Impact Factor

There are many arguments both against and in favour of the JIF - for various reasons, which is completely fine.

Some arguments "against" the JIF, supported by research:

1. JIF ≠ article (or researcher) quality

DORA’s primary recommendation is explicit: “Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles … or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.” Even Clarivate (the JIF owner) cautions that JIF is a journal-level metric and should not be used to evaluate individual papers or people. See https://sfdora.org/read/

2. Skewed distributions make the “average” meaningless

Most citations cluster on a small subset of papers; the mean used in JIF does not represent the typical article. This statistical problem was documented long ago and remains valid. See  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2126010/

3. Field & language biases

Because JIF is calculated from the WoS database, it inherits its coverage biases (English-language and Global North skew, Social Sciences & Humanities under-representation). Comparative studies show these systemic biases in WoS and Scopus coverage. Using JIF as a gatekeeper effectively penalises African, multilingual, and regional journals. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.08096

4. False precision & volatility

Reporting JIF to three decimals implies a precision the indicator does not possess; year-to-year swings and editorial policies amplify noise. This is a core critique in the Leiden Manifesto (Nature), which also warns against using one-size metrics across fields. See https://www.nature.com/articles/520429a

5. Gaming/manipulation risks
Editorial practices (e.g., inflating citations via reviews or “non-citable” items counted in the numerator) can distort JIF, further undermining its validity as a quality signal. See https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7079/497.1

Next time I will share some arguments in favour of using the JIF!

Take care colleagues, and hope you will be able to join our brief Khulisa Lunch Hour session next week!

With kind regards,

Ina

Ina Smith (her/she)

SciELO SA Planning Manager | Scholarly Publishing Programme
Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)

Senior Ambassador for Africa
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

DOAJ & Diamond: 22 years

ASSAf Switchboard: +27 12 349 6600    
Whatsapp: +27(0)82 818 0117
Email: i...@assaf.org.za and i...@doaj.org 

25A De Havilland Crescent, Persequor Park
Meiring Naudé Road, Lynnwood 0020, Pretoria, South Africa
PO Box 72135, Lynnwood Ridge 0040, Pretoria, South Africa 

ASSAf Website: https://www.assaf.org.za/
DOAJ Website: https://doaj.org/

 

ASSAf Disclaimer: The views and opinions included in this email belong to their author and do not necessarily mirror the views and opinions of the organisation. Our employees are obliged not to make any defamatory statements, infringe, or authorize infringement of any legal right. Therefore, the organisation will not accept any liability for such statements included in emails. In case of any damages or other liabilities arising, employees are fully responsible for the content of their emails. The processing of personal information by ASSAf is done lawfully and not excessive to the purpose of processing in compliance with the POPI Act, any codes of conduct issued by the Information Regulator in terms of the POPI Act and / or relevant legislation providing appropriate security safeguards for the processing of personal information of others.