Downloaded from Brill.Com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM Via Free Access 2 Makulilo

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 TARE THE AFRICAN REVIEW

brill.com/tare

“Where to Publish?” Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion at the University of Dar es Salaam

Alexander Makulilo | ORCID 0000-0001-8642-9390 Associate Professor; Department of Political Science and Public Administration, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Dodoma, Dodoma, Tanzania [email protected]

Abstract

Does “where to publish” affect academic staff promotion outcome? Using rational choice theory and the University of Dar es Salaam as case study, this article analyses the law and practice associated with academic staff promotion regarding “where to publish”. The article finds that the University has relatively well elaborate and adequate promotion guidelines and institutional frameworks to guide on “where to publish” in line with its vision of becoming a world-class university. Nonetheless, through series of workshops with staff and heads of department as well as interviews with the University management, it was observed that there is still little understanding of “where to publish” among staff although the situation is progressively changing. Some staff prefer predatory journals due to ignorance, frequent failures and lack of confidence to publish in credible journals. Consequently, the annual promotion rate remains low suggesting high rejection of publications by the University due to predatory nature of media of publication and failure by majority staff to publish.

Keywords

University of Dar es Salaam – where to publish – staff promotion – predatory journals – media of publication

1 Introduction

Staff promotion in higher learning institutions serves dual purposes. To the institutions it helps to promote its international academic rankings and visibility. This implies that with senior academic posts, an institution boosts its capacity on teaching, research, and consultancy. Without well qualified and committed academic staff, no academic institution can really ensure sus- tainability and quality over the long haul. Likewise, to an individual staff, promotion to a senior rank comes with additional renumeration, increased influence within the university, recognition, tenure, and leadership positions. Nevertheless, there are established modalities and procedures in universities for assessing and making recommendations on the performance of staff members in promotion exercises. These modalities and procedures are available in promotion related documents such as university statutes, conditions of service for senior members, criteria for appointments and promotions, and academic board decision booklets or circulars. In effect it is expected that universities will work within the confines of these procedures and modalities to help achieve institutional goals. Although the literature on academic staff promotion in higher learning institution world-wide is abundant, in the developing world and particularly in Tanzania it is scanty. Yet, such literature tends to link promotion and reward system as part and parcel of human resource management. Therefore, a major concern of this literature is to understand how employees are recruited and retained in a work organisation (Hilary et al., 2005; Tettey, 2006; Long et al., 1993; Armstrong, 2001). While this orientation would be useful in informing organisations on how to develop succession plans, it does not explain the requirements of “where to publish” in relation to academic staff promotion. Yet, within this kind of literature, several studies simply focus on “choosing the right journals” without necessarily linking it to staff promotion (Nicholas et al., 2017). In this case, it would imply looking at issues such as open access or subscription-based journals, indexed or non-indexed journals, high impact factor, comparative or single case study journals, frequency of publications, journal policy and writing style. The frequently asked question is why do authors prefer journal “X” to “Y”. The major attention of this literature is to see conformity of authors to the scope and policy of journals so as to avoid rejection rates. Another strand of literature links “foreign journals” and promotion (Adomi and Mordi, 2003). The major shortcoming of this perspective is that it classifies journals as foreign and indigenous. The former is also considered as international. It has to be noted that for a journal to qualify as international it requires

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 3 some attributes such as being reputed in international indexing databases, one-quarter (25%) of the editorial board reside or are employed outside the country of publication; one-third (33%) of the total number of papers published originate from outside the country of publication; at least half (50%) the total number of subscriptions originate from institutions or individuals outside the country of publication; wider acceptance and citation as well as being published by renowned publishers (Lakhotia, 2013; Shaik, 2017). In that case, a journal can still be international in its own locality as long as it exhibits features of an international journal. Hence, the geographical territoriality is no longer important in classifying the internationality or locality of a journal. Moreover, this perspective does not focus to understand the quality of journals on their own right as it considers all journals beyond geographical territoriality of a certain space as being of accepted quality (Ssentongo, 2020). Unlike this literature, the present article seeks to unravel the puzzle: Does “where to publish” affect academic staff promotion outcome? Using the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) as case study, it analyses the law and practice associated with academic staff promotion regarding “where to publish”. Specifically, it exam- ines four interrelated issues notably the extent to which the legal and institutional frameworks for promotion are adequate in guiding staff on “where to publish”; whether staff and heads of department are well informed of “where to publish”; why some staff publish in predatory journals; and the implications of “where to publish” in determining academic staff promotion outcome.

2 Methods

The University of Dar es Salaam was selected for this study because it is the oldest and leading university in Tanzania. Initially, the University started as an affiliate college of the University of London in October 1961 and raised its status as constituent college of the University of East Africa in 1963. In 1970, the University of East Africa was dissolved, and the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, the University of Nairobi in Kenya and Makerere University in Uganda were constituted as independent universities in their respective countries. However, at different times, three important academic units (the Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, the College of Health Sciences, and the College of Lands and Architectural Studies) were transformed into independent universities, that is, Sokoine University of Agriculture (1984), Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (2007) and Ardhi University (2007). The University enrols about 30,000 students at Mwalimu J. K. Nyerere Main Campus. It also has three constituent colleges,

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 4 Makulilo namely Mkwawa University College of Education (MUCE), Dar es Salaam University College of Education (DUCE), University of Dar es Salaam Mbeya College of Health and Allied Sciences (UDSM MCHAS), six campus colleges, seven schools, six institutes and twelve centres. It zeroes in on a wide range of disciplines in 81 undergraduate programmes, and 126 postgraduate programmes (i.e., Master’s and Ph.D. programmes). In its Corporate Strategic Plan 2014/15–2022/23, the University targets to publish 2000 journal papers annually. By 2017, the University had over 3,366 academic and administrative staff members (UDSM, 2017). Of these, 1,538 were academic staff with various ranks as indicated in Fig. 1 below.

Professors A/Professors S/Lecturers Lecturers A/Lectures T/Assistant

800

683 700 665 654 649 632

600 571

500

400 359 315 300 304 300 264 240 239 226 215 211 202 202 204 200 192 189 200 184 179

105 109 109 103 92 92 64 100 60 58 53 50 51

0 2011/20122012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 figure 1 Academic saff by ranks (2011/2012–2016/2017) Source: UDSM Annual Reports (2011/2012–2016/2017)

Therefore, studying the University of Dar es Salaam resonates well with the higher education sector. The university has for many years been ranked around the best twenty universities in Africa and consistently the first in Tanzania. This article draws data from four main sources. Firstly, data was drawn from series of six workshops conducted between 2016 and 2019 at the University of Dar es Salaam on publication and promotion of academic staff where I was engaged to facilitate on “where to publish and academic staff promotion”. Two workshops were conducted at MUCE, one at DUCE, one at the Institute of Marine Science (IMS), one with all heads of department at UDSM and its constituent colleges of MUCE, DUCE and UDSM MCHAS, and the last one with all UDSM leaders including Principals, Directors, Deans, Deputy Principals, Associate Directors, Associate Deans and Heads of Department. The workshops

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 5 had in total about 500 participants. Secondly, data was drawn from interviews with the Vice Chancellor who is the Chairman of Senate that approves all publications relevant for promotion, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) who is the Chairperson of the Senate Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee (SRKEC) responsible for all publications and research at the University, the Chairperson of the University Publication Committee (UPC) as well as the Director of Human Resource Management. Thirdly, the article relied on the review of UDSM Vision 2061 booklet, UDSM Corporate Strategic Plan 2014/2015–2022/2023, University annual reports 2012/2013–2016/2017, press releases on staff academic promotions, and budget speech from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 2020/2021. Fourthly, data was drawn from my observations when I held various positions at the University between 2012 and 2019 as coordinator of research and publications at the College of Arts and Social Sciences, head of department of Political Science and Public Administration and Chairman of the Departmental Staff Review Committee, Principal of College of Social Sciences and Chairman of College Staff Review Committee, member of the University Publication Committee, member of the Committee of Deans, member of Appointments Committee, and member of Senate. Throughout, data was collected and analysed qualitatively in relation to “where to publish” and academic staff promotion.

3 “Where to Publish”: Conceptual Framework

The question of “where to publish” suggests a choice among competing alter- natives. The literature on rational choice posits that individuals have prefer- ences among the available choices which allow them decide the best option they prefer. The rational agent therefore takes into account available information, possibilities of events and outcomes, as well as potential costs and ben- efits in arriving at the preferred choices (Becker, 1976; Green and Shapiro, 1994; Jeffrey, 1996). In the context of publication industry, there are two basic choices namely science and mediocrity. The former exhibits universal accepted standards of quality by the scientific community while the latter falls short of science. Mediocrity therefore is a reflection of predatory and low-quality journals and publishers. With the resurgence and proliferation of open access predatory journals and publishers in 2000s, most of them self-declaring themselves “international”, the question to address “where to publish” has predominated the academia and scientific community. While predatory outlets are world- wide phenomenon, it is predominant in developing countries. In some institutions, publishing in deceptive journals is not an issue and can therefore lead

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 6 Makulilo to academic or administrative positions achieved without the proper merits (Balehegn, 2017). Such institutions do not assess the quality of the media of publication. However, the media of publication is critical in determining the quality of the peer-review process and the overall quality of the scientific merit of a scholarly work. Since the cost of publishing in predatory journals is relatively low in terms of peer review process and very short period from submission of a manuscript to publication, a staff can realise a good number of papers for promotion (Grgić and Guskić, 2019). Normally, such staff are not competent and skilful to ensure quality teaching, research and public service consequently jeopardising reputation of their respective institutions. An academic position obtained regardless of scientific merits is popularly termed as “zombie professorship” (Frandsen, 2019; Balehegn, 2017; Pyne, 2017; Omobowale et al., 2014). Institutions and staff who practice and benefit out of mediocracy often times camouflage quality in public. Thus, such institutions state clearly in their vision and other policy documents to stand for distinctive outputs. Pyne (2017) maintains that a publication in a deceptive journal has a negative but insigniﬁcant effect on faculty salary. However, the number of journal publications has a strong positive signiﬁcant effect on salary. This implies that the quantity of publications is more important than the quality, and therefore there are few incentives to prevent publication in deceptive journals. Interestingly, staff whose promotion was rewarded through predatory journals always live in fear and inferiority complex throughout their academic life especially when they hear anything equal to staff qualification audit. On the other hand, the association of “where to publish” and science as a choice implies that both individuals and institutions are concerned about quality. In this regard, the freedom by staff to choose “where to publish” is constrained by demands of scientific community, regulatory authorities, and institutions. Universities are much concerned about “where to publish” owing to four main reasons. Firstly, it is about the reputation and visibility of the universities. It should be noted that a publication always goes with institutional affiliation of an author. It means that if staff of a university publish in higher quality journal outlets or publishers, that among other things, contributes to enhancing the reputation of the university and vice-versa is the case. Secondly, almost all universities in their respective vision and mission statements identify themselves as centres of excellence. To realize this label, it follows logically that they need highly competent and skilful staff to achieve their goals. Thirdly, with publications in high quality outlets, universities are able to attract big funding through research and consultancy projects. Fourthly, with publications in high reputable outlets, universities are able to promote staff smoothly to the senior ranks. Senior staff are critical to the survival of universities in the sense that they perform teaching, research and consultancies to the required

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 7 standards set by regulators nationally and internationally. It is on this basis that countries and universities have put in place guidelines to ensure that academic staff publish in the most possible reputable outlets. Scholars argue that journal publishing is the main medium by which early career researchers disseminate research. This is because it is by paper publishing that they are judged, given tenure, and promoted. This is also true for their more established colleagues (Nicholas et al., 2015). In a recent study, it has been found that when they are in a position to choose or inﬂuence where their research is published, early career researchers’ overriding preference is for top journals, that is, journals perceived to be of high quality and stellar reputation, which in academe translates to high impact factor. This is as well the case with more experienced colleagues (Nicholas et al., 2017). In some countries, media of publication is a national issue and is regulated by a ministry of education. For example, in Poland, the list of journals is provided by the Ministry of Higher Education, which is updated annually. The list comprises of three parts: part A (the best journals, with Journal Impact Factor and indexed by Web of Science, mostly international), part B (mainly Polish journals that do not have an Impact Factor but have a Polish score), and part C (Polish and international journals without Journal Impact Factor but with Polish scores). List A is the best, then C, and last of all is B. The list is very important not only for individual researchers but for the universities in determining tenure, promotion and awarding research grants. Based on the aforementioned, “where to publish” concerns mainly with choosing between science and deception. In institutions or countries where media of publication is not an issue, any published paper either in reputable or predatory journals is accepted for determining promotion, tenure, and renumeration. In this scenario, the freedom of staff to choose “where to publish” is not limited. This has resulted into the proliferation of “zombie professorship” and hence mediocrity. In a long run it affects the entire education system since quality is seriously jeopardised. In contrast, where institutions put in place mechanisms to guide “where to publish” in view of safeguarding quality, staff freedom to choose media of outlet is constrained to ensure quality control. In any case, the question of “where to publish” is influenced by both institutional and individual interests.

4 Legal and Institutional Frameworks

In Tanzania, there are two layers of law and institutions in connection to, among other things, promotion of staff in higher learning institutions. The first layer consists of national instruments namely the Universities Act 2005

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 8 Makulilo and its related institution namely the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU) as well as the Harmonised Scheme of Service for Academic Staff in Public Universities and Constituent Colleges, 2014. The second layer consists of the university level guidelines and institutions particularly the UDSM (2016) Guidelines for the Assessment of Academic Staff Performance, and various Council and Senate resolutions. The idea is to understand the extent to which these instruments provide for promotion specifically in relation to the question of “where to publish”.

4.1 The Universities Act 2005 The Universities Act 2005 establishes and mandates the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU) powers to oversee and control the standards for provision of university education in Tanzania. Article 5 of the Act thus stipulates the functions of TCU. Broadly, the TCU is responsible to ensure quality assurance in providing university education. Section 5(i)(c)(iii) of the Universities Act states that the TCU is responsible for providing guidance and monitor the long-term planning, staff development, scholarship and physical development strategies and programmes of universities. Further to this, Section 5(i)(m)(i) of the Act mandates TCU to regulate and standardise the “promotion criteria, des- ignations and titles of academic and senior administrative staff.” In line with the above, TCU has developed the “Handbook for Standards and Guidelines for University Education in Tanzania (Third Edition) 2019”. These standards and guidelines are guided by among other things the following two principles (a) Universities have the primary responsibility to ensure and assure the quality of their institutions and the education they provide, and (b) the Standards and Guidelines provide minimum parameters to be adhered to in the provision of university education in the country while encouraging universities to exceed them as they aspire for a competitive edge in quality and excellence. The central theme by TCU is that high quality should be observed throughout the provision of higher education. In order this to happen, institutions should cherish the values of quality in theory and practice. TCU therefore provides that since human resource is the most important asset of an organization, universities have to engage teaching and research staff who have good academic and professional standing. This requires them to put in place clear guidelines on staff appraisal and promotion processes in order to generate a team of high quality and motivated academic staff that will realise the vision of respective institutions. Specifically, in relation to the question of “where to publish”, TCU provides that:

Regarding the common practice of reviewing of publications internally or externally, the Standards and Guidelines stipulate that articles published

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 9

in highly reputable journals with significant impact factors (IF) and listed under Scientific Citation Index (SCI) or indexed in well-known databases should not be reviewed on the basis of quality of the paper. This is because it is evident that such papers would have gone through rigorous review before being accepted for publication. This arrangement will encourage academic staff to strive to publish research articles in journals with the highest scholarly standards, and hence enhancing the academic reputation of their universities. Therefore, the Standards and Guidelines presented in Part 5 stipulate that the Commission and universities should classify journals so that staff can be informed for them to know their publication points with no need of engagement of reviewers. This would reduce subjectivity and conflict of interest prevailing in the publication industry. A frequently updated list of journals might be provided by subject/specializations/field of studies and categorised as A, B, C and D journals.

The above paragraph clearly indicates serious concern by TCU on “where to publish”. It is on that basis that the Commission summarises four issues for proper guidance. Firstly, TCU requires universities to undertake dual review that of media of publication as well as scientific merit of a paper itself while considering staff promotion. Secondly, TCU requires staff to publish in highly reputable journals with significant impact factors (IF) and listed under Scientific Citation Index (SCI) or indexed in well-known databases. Thirdly, the list of highly reputable journals with significant impact factors (IF) and listed under Scientific Citation Index (SCI) or indexed in well-known databases should be prepared. Papers which are published in that list should not undergo another review of scientific merit since that had already happened through the rigorous review process during publication. Fourthly, a frequently updated list of journals should be prepared by subject/specializations/field of studies and categorised as A, B, C and D journals. This implies that papers in moderate journals should continue to be subjected under the review of media of publication and scientific merit of the paper. While TCU Standards and Guidelines provide “minimum requirements”, they are sufficient enough to address the question of “where to publish” amid the resurgence and proliferation of predatory and low-quality journals and publishers.

4.2 Harmonised Scheme of Service for Academic Staff 2014 With the increase of public universities, there has been a major concern on different practices with regard to criteria for staff recruitment and promotion across institutions. These variations have resulted into universities having different packages for similar ranks. It is against this background that the Treasury

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 10 Makulilo

Registrar who is responsible for authorizing and monitoring the development of schemes of service for all public institutions in collaboration with TCU and other key stakeholders initiated a move to come up with a harmonised scheme of service for all public universities. The powers for harmonisation are granted through the Treasury Registrar Act, 2002 (R.E. 2010 Cap. 370, Section 10). The preamble to the Report on Development of the Scheme of Service for Academic Staff in Public Universities and Constituent Colleges, March 2014 particularly paragraph 1.1 states the mischief the harmonised scheme of service was made to cure. In part, the preamble states that “The current practice on recruitment and promotion criteria for academic staff in Public Universities and Constituent Colleges differs in many forms. For instance, public universities do not have similar criteria for recruitment, promotion and salary scales. These variations have culminated into Universities having different pay packages to similar ranks. Hence there have been numerous complaints about the lack of comprehensive guidelines to cover different aspects of recruitment, promotion and awarding criteria.” It has to be emphasized that the harmonised scheme of service provides the minimum criteria. While the scheme does not say anything about “where to publish”, it was meant to facilitate horizontal mobility of teaching staff among public universities and constituent colleges in order to increase institutional competitiveness in attracting expertise from the labour market. The usefulness of this scheme in connection to “where to publish” is placed on the salary package proportionality to points obtained from assessment of publications required for staff promotion. From rational choice point of view, some staff do publish targeting promotion so as to earn high income. Nonetheless, if mediocracy is not combated, it could mean that the government will be paying salaries to unqualified staff who are not able to realise broader national strategic goals.

4.3 Guidelines for the Assessment of Academic Staff Performance at UDSM By 2061, UDSM shall be transformed into a world class, international university, whose performance is clearly and distinctively outstanding. This requires high skilful and competent human resource. In order to attract, retain and have in place a talented and competent pool of human resources, the University aims at among other things, progressively raising the performance bar for the staff members so as to enhance staff productivity with regard to the quality and quantity of publications. In its Corporate Strategic Plan (CSP) 2014–2023, the University states that the number of research papers published in peer reviewed journals should reach 2,000 per year by 2023. In order to ensure

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 11 quality, UDSM has put in place several guidelines in relation to “where to publish”. The key ones include: (a) UDSM Guidelines for the Assessment of Academic Staff Performance of 2016. (b) Resolutions of the University of Dar es Salaam Council 239th Meeting held on 22nd November 2016. (c) Mandates of the University Publication Committee (following the reor- ganization of the Office of the DVC – Research by the UDSM Council at its 232nd meeting held on 6th November 2015); (d) The decision of the 331st UDSM Senate Meeting (Senate Memorandum No. 331.4) held on 4th May 2017. (e) Criteria set by the 341st UDSM Senate Meeting held on 15th August 2018 (which approved the report on Evaluation of Journals published by the University of Dar es Salaam and Other Selected Institutions in which Members of the Academic Staff publish their Scholarly Works). (f) The position of the 344th Senate Meeting held on 23rd August 2018 on open access journals. The above guidelines and resolutions were passed to address, among other things, the question of “where to publish”. The proliferation of predatory journals has informed the Senate and Council to pass decisions from time to time with the effect of guiding staff “where to publish”. The most popular decision is that of the 331st UDSM Senate Meeting held on 4th May 2017 which states:

Publishing in international journals has become chaotic due to existence predatory publishers, who are after quick money and desire quick publishing while compromising the quality of the peer review process … Some journals issue advertisements to publish papers within four (4) days or two weeks from the day of receiving the paper to final publication. Such a quick publishing process is doubtful and suspicious … In order for UDSM to maintain high quality publications in international journals: (i) Academic units should vet the international journals in which members of staff will publish. These should include journals in renowned publishers like Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Oxford Press, Emerald, Taylor and Francis, Royal Society (ii) Journals should be indexed in international renowned databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation index (iii) Journals will have an impact factor issued by Thomson and Reuters, which is always updated every year (iv) Having vetted them, the same list shall be vetted at the College Board and final vetting shall be by the UDSM Publication Committee. The list of

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 12 Makulilo

international journals that shall be accepted for publication will also be recognised for promotion to professorial ranks.

At UDSM, only Senate approved journals can be used for promotion. In this case, the Senate can pre-approve a list of journals and publishers for staff promotion or evaluate journals and publishers upon submission of publications by staff for consideration for promotion. The process starts at the department. The publications should be submitted to the college/institute/school board for recommendations to Senate. Before Senate deliberates the recommendations from the relevant board, publications have to be further vetted by the University Publication Committee (UPC) and its recommendations sent to the Senate Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee (SRKEC). The recommendations by SRKEC are finally submitted to Senate for consideration and approval. Once the media of publication have been approved, the second review of the scientific quality of each publication is conducted by either inter- nal or external reviewers depending on the promotion ranks. The dual review of media of publication in which staff publish their works as well as the review of the scientific quality of the work to the great extent ensure high quality works are used for staff promotion. It is after the two reviews and subsequently obtaining the required number of points that the Appointments Committee or Academic Committee will approve all promotions to non-professorial ranks and the Council for all professorial ranks. In relative terms, UDSM has stringent promotion criteria and processes which for a long time have been considered by some staff as impediments towards career development. During stakeholders’ discussion at the time of proposing the 2016 guidelines which came into force in January 2016, a good number of staff argued forcefully that if academic staff from the UDSM receive equal salaries and experience the same living costs as their counterparts from other public universities, is there any justification for the UDSM to have different criteria from other universities? Why can’t the UDSM simply adopt those criteria put by the harmonized scheme of service? This proposal has always been defeated by two other arguments that UDSM’s vision is to become a world class university. This requires high skilful and competent staff. Again, it has been advanced that UDSM is the oldest and leading University in the higher education sector in Tanzania with international reputation and standing. Hence, lowering its standards in staff promotion will defeat its vision and competitiveness. The Harmonised Scheme of Service and TCU standards provide only minimum requirements but institutions are mandated to ensure quality beyond the given frameworks.

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 13

5 Awareness on “Where to Publish” and the Trap of Predatory Publishers

When I attended a session on “publishing in international journals” at the University of Edinburgh during the ECAS 2019 “Africa: Connections and Disruptions” from 11 to 14 June 2019, four editors of the leading journals on African studies namely the Journal of Modern African Studies, Journal of Critical African Studies, Review of African Political Economy, and Journal of Southern African Studies organized a panel on where to publish and writing papers for reputable journal outlets. The panellists denounced forcefully predatory open access journals. Understandably, the literature on predatory publication posits that there is no specific definition on what constitutes predatory journals but scholars agree on several criteria in order to identify the weaknesses of these journals including lack of peer review process, payment of publication fees, possession of fake attributes like indexing, addresses, names similar to reputable journals, too much wide scope, exhibiting grammatical errors, rapid publication, automated solicitation of manuscripts and self-declaration of being “international” (Shamseer et al., 2017; Frandsen, 2019; Clark and Thompson, 2017; Xia et al., 2015; Christopher and Young, 2015). Yet, few studies exist on the awareness and motivation of authors who publish their works in questionable journals, and it is difﬁcult to ask the authors of such publications as they will probably claim unawareness or defend the journal regardless (Frandsen, 2019; Cobey et al., 2019). In his popular article “Why I Publish in ‘Predatory’ Journals – and Why You Should, Too,” Burgess-Jackson (2020) sensitises scholars to publish in “predatory” journals mainly on six grounds: wider readership, rapid publication, unlimited allowable article length, retention of copyright ownership, bypassing biased editors, and scholarly independence. He believes that the so called “Predatory” journals are actually not predatory while the ones called “Reputable” journals are predatory owing to morality and self-interest motives. My critical review of this article indicates that the author has shied away from discussing issues of peer-review process in what he considers as “reputable” journals. The quality of a paper normally depends on its the peer-review. However, what is critical to almost all predatory journals is low quality or completely lack of peer-review process. The matter here is not necessarily speed of peer-review and publication. One wonders, if reviewers for papers come from the same scholarly community, why do they act differently for predatory and reputable journals? One of the most plausible answers is that there is low quality or completely lack of peer-review in predatory journals hence rapid publication resulting into

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 14 Makulilo mediocrity. Their interest is mainly to collect money from authors and publish papers as they are. However, it is known that peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication (Frandsen, 2019: 57). A serious academics cannot subscribe to avoiding a rigorous peer-review. It is surprising that, Burgess-Jackson (2020), after 38 years of publishing in “reputable” academic journals, he has decided to publish exclusively in “predatory” journals. His publications appear in outlets with high reputation such as Oxford University Press, Taylor & Francis, Cambridge University Press, Wiley-Blackwell, Penn State University Press, and Springer. He has 31 stand-alone papers and one book published by the Oxford University Press. Burgess-Jackson (2020: 3) puts it clearly that “I say all this not to brag (obviously), but to forestall the objection that I publish in ‘predatory’ journals because I cannot get published in ‘reputable’ journals.” I suspect that his advice to sensitise academics to publish in predatory journals is grounded on ill-motives of limiting growth of science and quality knowledge produc- tion especially in developing countries. Balehegn (2017: 97) thus posits that “(r)ecently, there has been an alarming increase in the number of ‘academic’ papers published in vanity journals and publishers. Such journals, dubbed predatory because their main objective is making money out of authors, compromise or completely abandon the peer review system. An increase in publishing with such journals, which is common in developing counties, will affect the quality of science, excellence, development, and individual researchers’ and institutions’ professional reputation.” If UDSM boosts itself that by 2061, it shall be transformed into a world class, international university, whose performance is clearly and distinctively outstanding, the advice to publish in predatory journals might not be a path its academics to take especially the junior ones. During the ECAS session, a colleague from Nigeria remarked that most journals from the West reject papers by authors from Africa and take too long to accept manuscripts. The panellists explained that the rejection is solely based on scientific quality of the manuscripts as well as scope and policy of journals. They further stated that these journals are highly competitive receiving over 300 papers annually while they publish not more than 30 papers per year. A group of Nigerian colleagues stated that in Nigeria they have founded a lot of journals however called “predatory” by Western scholars, they have been instrumental in decolonizing knowledge1 and ensuring promotion of academic staff. They acknowledged still that these journals can be further improved to be used by Africans so as to avoid domination by the West. While the argument

1 See also Jimmy Spire Ssentongo (2020) ‘Which journal is that?’ Politics of academic promotion in Uganda and the predicament of African publication outlets. Critical African Studies, 12(3), 283–301.

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 15 of decolonizing knowledge could have some merits, that does not omit the need for quality papers (Adomi and Mordi, 2003). Based on 30 interviews with Nigerian researchers, Omobowale, Akanle, Adeniran, and Adegboyega (2014) ﬁnd four explanations for authors choosing a deceptive publication outlet:

Researchers see their colleagues achieve promotion on the basis of deceptive publication outlets and thus becoming zombie professors, which can lead them to follow their path. They may be able to publish in decent journals but use the deceptive journals to fast track their promotion. Third, researchers may be ignorant of the quality of the deceptive journals. Finally, articles in questionable journals are accepted without adequate scrutiny by appointment and promotion committees.

Omobowale et al. (2014) conclude that the deceptive journals are increasingly used among scholars in developing countries looking for a quick publication to achieve promotion as these journals satisfy the “international publishing rule”, which is common in developing countries. The Tanzania Commission for Universities rightly emphases that “Every University shall guide the academic staff to as far as possible diversify the journals and other recognized media in which they publish their articles” (TCU, 2019: 174). Based on series of workshops conducted between 2016 and 2019 to about 500 staff at UDSM and its constituent colleges, a significant number of participants acknowledged that they were not familiar with the legal and institutional frameworks for staff promotion at the University. Most of them did consult the frameworks when they wanted to submit their publications for promotion. It is estimated that about 65% of them had not seen or read the key documents on promotion before publishing in journals. This is a critical problem as the guidelines contain among other things some guidance on “where to publish”. It implies that a significant number of staff do publish without taking due regards of institutional requirements on “where to publish” consequently affecting their career development as well as the reputation and growth of the university. It was observed that most staff had not yet published while few had published between one to three papers and extremely very few simply attempted to publish but could not be successful. When asked about their knowledge on publication, about 60% of them opined that they had not yet published and did not know “where to publish”; 20% stated that they had published either in low quality or predatory journal outlets; and the remaining 20% published in reputable outlets and are familiar with “where to publish.” My workshop with about 80 heads of department at UDSM on 29 March 2019 in the New Library again revealed little understanding about “where to publish” as well as UDSM

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 16 Makulilo guidelines on promotion. About 65% of them admitted to face critical chal- lenges to distinguish between open access predatory and credible journals. This has posed limitations to them when guiding their staff where to publish as well as assessing staff promotion in their respective departments. Globally, there are no quick and straight forward fixes to detect predatory journals and publishers. Hence, it is extremely difficult to identify predatory publication outlets with untrained eye. It was due to this challenge that in 2016 UDSM rejected all open access journals for promotion. However, after further research, it was discovered that some open access journals are reputable and are published by renowned world class publishers such as Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Nature, Brill, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Emerald, John Hopkins, Sage, and Blackwell. Moreover, they are indexed at Web of Science and Scopus. Again, papers in these journals are highly cited and add value to the visibility of the university. During the workshops, the most predominant explanation as to why staff published in predatory journals is simply ignorance. Initially, this could be true based on participants knowledge on publication industry and skills. However, with increasing scrutiny of journals by the UDSM Publication Committee and capacity building workshops, those who still publish with predatory outlets claim to do so not necessarily for promotion but for quick dissemination of knowledge and visibility. This could be termed by other scholars as unethical behaviour (Frandsen, 2019). Clark and Thompson (2017: 2500) hold that “faced with regular failures in response to manuscript submissions to inﬂuential journals, publishing in predatory journals provides an antidote to the unpre- dictability and lack of quick payoff experienced in academic publishing. It provides an important counterweight to underlying fears of failure.” During the induction seminar for all UDSM leaders held from 14 to 15 February 2019 at the APC Hotel and Conference Centre in Dar es Salaam, the Vice Chancellor, Professor William Anangisye vowed to uphold and protect UDSM’s standards towards realising the vision 2061. He forcefully denounced predatory journals and publishers so as to groom the best skilful and competent staff nationally and internationally. He stressed that during his tenure he will not allow breach of UDSM traditions of quality and standards.2 It is due to strict review of the publication media by UDSM that the number of journal papers does not necessarily match the number of staff promotions. To be sure, if one computes the annual rate of promotion by publication for staff who may qualify through publication pathway for the period from 2012/13 to 2016/17, it

2 Speech by the UDSM Vice Chancellor 14 February 2019.

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 17

figure 2 Promotion rate in percentage (2012/2013–2016/2017) Source: UDSM 2016/17 Annual Report is evident that it has never exceeded 3% (Fig. 2). For example, in 2016/17 the total number of academic staff was 1,323. During this academic year, the total number of promotions to various ranks was 18 equivalent to 1.3%. Hence, continuous capacity building initiatives and mentorship are seriously needed to develop staff confidence in publishing in reputable journal outlets. This will allow a new working culture built on confidence not fear to emerge and endure. Senior or established researchers who published in reputable journals can play an influential role in fostering such a culture. The mentors must discuss with staff openly and inspire them by telling their own stories about publishing decisions and failures; and how they managed to publish in credible journals.

6 “Where to Publish” and Promotion Outcome

There is a positive correlation between publishing in high reputable journal outlets and staff promotion (Niles et al., 2020; Nicholas, 2017; Heckman and Moktan, 2018; Green and Baskind, 2007; Youn and Price, 2009; Harley et al., 2010). This is a scenario particularly if a promoting institution strictly values quality at its core business. Under such circumstances, the level of scrutiny during the peer review is rigorously done to assure a high-quality published work. In Tanzania, the regulatory authority for higher education has stated in

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 18 Makulilo its recently issued guidelines that papers which have been published in a high- quality journal with high impact factor can be used straight for promotion without subjecting it to further reviews. It states that:

Journals with the highest scholarly standards and hence enhancing the academic reputation of the University, articles published in highly reputable journals listed under Scientific Citation Index (SCI) or indexed in well-known databases shall not be reviewed on the basis of quality of the paper, in consideration that such articles would have undergone rigorous peer review by the publishers before being accepted for publication. TCU, 2019: 174

The above quotation emphasizes the centrality of quality rather than of quantity. In a situation where an institution does not embrace high quality culture in conducting its business, strict scrutiny of papers is not upheld thereby endan- gering the whole of higher education in a nation. When staff are transferred to another university which upholds the highest standards of promotion, the staff suffer a lot since their publications are reviewed to assure compliance with university standards. In some cases, staff are demoted from professorial to lecturer ranks. This has been a common practice at the University of Dar es Salaam.3 The UDSM subjects every paper to two kinds of review namely review of media in which an article is published and review of scientific quality of the article. Always, if the paper passes the first review it is then subjected to the review of the scientific quality. My experience as Chairman of Staff Review Committee at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration and at the College of Social Sciences, Member of the University Publication Committee, Member of the Appointments Committee, member of the Committee of Deans, and the Senate at the University of Dar es Salaam is that a good number of papers had been rejected in the first review of media of publication and some which passed this stage were graded low in the scientific review of the publication. Nonetheless, there has developed a clear pattern that most of those who published with world renowned publishers such as Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Sage, Nature, Brill, Willey, Oxford University Press,

3 When interviewed, the Director of Human Resource, Ms. Asha Hayeshi opined that promotion of academic staff depend on two main factors i.e., Open Performance Appraisal System (OPRAS) and required points obtained from publications as stipulated in the UDSM Guidelines for the Assessment of Academic Staff Performance of 2016 as well as in the Harmonized Scheme of Service for Academic Staff 2014. She maintained that only staff who meet the minimum requirements are promoted to the next academic rank. However, few staff meet such requirements (Telephone interview 10.05.2020).

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 19

Cambridge University Press, Emerald, John Hopkins, Macmillan, Penguin and whose publications are in reputable international databases like the Web of Science, Scopus, Pro-Quest, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index, JSTOR, EBSCO, their promotions were successful. It has to be pointed out that publishing in the above outlets is highly demanding. It requires much time, dedication and efforts to academics and research. Moreover, it requires some guidance and capacity building skills. Unfortunately, most people would like shortcuts at the expense of quality hence deciding to publish in predatory journal outlets. During the workshops at MUCE, one staff testified to me that she submitted ten papers for consideration for promotion to the position of senior lecturer. However, nine papers were rejected since they were published in predatory open access journals in just a period of one year. The staff admitted that she paid between 50 to 200 USD for each paper. Her experience was that publishing in journals was not as difficult as other staff claimed. It was when the papers were rejected that she came to realise the problem of predatory journals. The above observations are clearly reflected on the proportionality between the number of publications and actual promotions for eight years from 2012/13 to 2019/20. Over the stated period, UDSM had 4,273 journal papers resulting to only 186 staff promotion to various ranks. In its Corporate Strategic Plan (CSP): 2014–2023, the University states that the number of research papers published in peer reviewed journals should reach 2,000 per year by 2023. However, the actual number of publications is far below the stated goal. Over the period of 8 years from the academic year 2012/13 to 2019/20, UDSM has in total been able to publish only 4,273 journal papers which could according to its strategic plan be attained only in two years. It was only in 2019/20 where the annual publication rate reached 50% of the target. As indicated in Fig. 3, the gap between the number of publications and annual promotions is unproportionally warranted. This suggests that the majority staff at UDSM are not publishing at all or those who publish choose low quality or predatory journals which are rejected by the University thereby affecting their promotion negatively.4 During an interview with the Vice Chancellor of UDSM, he admitted the problem of few publications and low rate of staff promotion in relation to the actual number of publications. He mentioned that the University will continue to provide capacity building

4 When interviewed, Prof. Pendo Malangwa, the Chairperson of UPC opined that of all publications that are vetted annually, about 50% are rejected due to failure to meet the required standards set by the University. She further held that it appears most staff are not conversant with the rules of the game that guide vetting of media of publication (Telephone interview 06.05.2020).

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 20 Makulilo

figure 3 Journal papers and promotion outcome (2012/2013–2019/2020) Source: UDSM 2012/13–2016/17 Annual Reports and MoEST Budget Speech April 2020/21 seminars and support resources to its staff so as to increase the volume of research and publications. However, he maintained that the issue of quality will be central in research and publications. He stressed the role of heads of department in the entire process of supervising quality in publications and staff promotion. Hence, they need to be informed about all regulations and guidelines guiding research, publications and staff promotion.5 Yet, starting from 2016/17 when promotion criteria were further improved to assure quality, a good number of promotion applications was turned down on the ground of poor-quality journal outlets or publishers. This was critical in relation to the open access predatory journals. About 40% of participants in workshops opined that they had experienced rejection of some or all of their papers submitted to the University for the purposes of promotion. Notwithstanding, scholars posit that awareness of predatory publishers and their practices in the scholarly community is now much higher than even three years ago (Clark and Thompson, 2017: 2500). In order to understand better the above argument, one has to consider promotions before 2016/17 when new regulations of January 2016 came into force. Unlike the 2008 guidelines, the new ones require all papers to be published in reputable international journals for one to be promoted to professorial ranks. It is known that reputable international journals are high-demanding in terms of quality papers and indeed it takes time to publish in such outlets. Moreover

5 Telephone interview (06.05.2020).

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 21 in 2016, the degree of scrutinizing journal papers increased after introducing the UPC to determine the quality of media through which staff publish their papers. It was at the same year that the University applied a total ban to all open access journal outlets due to predatory publishers. This can explain with the introduction of these three conditions that only one staff managed to get promoted to associate professor. The College of Natural and Applied Sciences was the most affected despite leading by a greater margin in terms of journal papers published. Total number of papers published were 106 contribut- ing to about 41% of all the journal papers published at UDSM in year 2016/17. Similarly, out of 16 staff who were promoted to the rank of senior lecturer, only 3 of them managed to get promoted to associate professor in 2019. Likewise, out of the University total number of 189 senior lecturers by 2016/17 only 14 had been promoted to the rank of associate professor by the year 2019. Thus, over the entire period of 8 years, UDSM has managed to promote a total number of 186 staff to various ranks (see Fig. 4) as follows: – 21 (lecturers), 101 (senior lecturers), 50 (associate professors) and 14 (professors). Starting its operation in 2016, the UPC as a technical filter of the quality of media of publication has become very much known for its role of scrutinizing papers. At the beginning, this Committee was so unpopular as many papers were turned down due to being published either in low quality outlets or predatory publishers. Many staff were not aware of the functions and mandate of the Committee. During the workshops, about 60% of participants thought that the UPC is the one which conducts the entire assessment of the paper and award of the obtained points.

Professors A/Professors S/Lecturers Lecturers Total

40 36 35

30 30

25 25 23 22 21

20 18 18 17 16 14 15 13 12 11 10 10 10 10 9 7 6 6 5 444 5 3 3 22 2222 1 1 1 00 0 0 0 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 figure 4 Promotion by academic ranks (2012/2013–2019/2020) Source: UDSM Annual Reports (2012/2013–2019/2020) and MoEST Budget Speech 2020/21

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 22 Makulilo

6.1 Vetting of Publication Media and Outcomes Prior to 2016, vetting of publications at UDSM was not done systematically and in a comprehensive manner. Scrutiny of publications was mainly limited to quality of the scientific content while the quality of the publication media was not addressed. It was during the reorganisation of the office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor – Research by the UDSM Council at its meeting held on 6th November 2015 that the UPC was established to scrutinise the quality of publication media. At its 324th regular meeting of the Senate held on 6th May 2016, the first committee members of UPC were appointed for the period of two years. This committee comprised of five members.6 Initially, vetting process of publication was conducted in confidentiality and mainly by the committee itself. Publications by those who sought promotion were vetted and outcome was simply reflected in the final promotion outcome. In 2018, new members of UPC comprising of ten academics were appointed.7 Unlike in the past, vetting process starts at the academic department. The Director of Research and Publication (DRP) who was the chairperson of the committee sent the vetting matrix to all heads of units to provide guidance for academic staff members to vet themselves and forward their reports in the required matrix. Although this approach caused many delays and inconsistence in matrix compilation, it was effective in getting individuals to participate in the process of vetting their own publications. This approach was also important in determining the knowledge of these academics in the vetting process, which is an important step towards awareness rising on where to publish. It was at this time that promotion rules and criteria were consolidated to determine criteria for vetting. Opening up the vetting process increased transparency and accountability of the exercise. It was at this particular time that the UPC became more popular and at times some staff perceived it as a barrier towards promotion. This committee lasted for about one year before a new one was formed around July 2019. The third committee was appointed from July 2019 to June 2021 triennium. This committee is represented by one member from each University unit. Unlike the previous two committees, the current one is chaired by the Director of Quality Assurance instead of the Director of Research and Publication.

6 Prof. Aloyce Mayo – College of Engineering and Technology; Prof. Anthony Mshandete – College of Natural and Applied Sciences; Prof. Abel Ishumi – School of Education; Dr. Shani Omary – TATAKI; and Dr. Benjamin Mutagwaba – University of Dar es Salaam Business School. 7 Prof. Godliving Mtui – DUCE; Prof. Alexander Makulilo – College of Social Sciences, Dr. Godlisten Shao – DUCE; Dr. Theodora Mwenegoha – School of Law; Dr. Esther Ndenje – University Library; Dr. Joel S. Mtebe – College of Information and Communication Technologies; Dr. Christine Noe – DRP; Dr. Joseph Biginagwa – College of Humanities; Dr. Amani Lusekelo – DUCE; and Dr. Siasa Mzenzi – Dar es Salaam University Press.

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 23

The vetting of publication media intends to appreciate the existence of the outlet in which a staff has published as well as the quality of the media itself. Throughout its existence, between 45% and 50% of publications submitted for vetting are rejected due to poor quality or predatory nature of the publication media. Table 1 indicates that of 2,136 publications submitted to UPC from 2016 to 2020, only 1,187 equivalent to 55.6% were recommended to be used for promotion. It is interesting to note that in June 2020 about 314 (50.1%) publications out of 627 were rejected to be used for promotion. The above data implies that a good number of UDSM staff are not yet conversant with the University promotion rules and hence the whole question of “where to publish”. The same data reveals that the Heads of Department as well as Principals, Deans and Directors are not familiar with “where to publish” and university promotion rules. This is because, the initial scrutiny starts from these levels before publications are sent to UPC for vetting. Generally, this state of affairs affects staff promotion outcome. When interviewed, the Deputy Vice Chancellor responsible for research, Prof. Bernadeta Killian said that “Staff have slowly begun to appreciate the mechanisms for quality control of the publications and indeed the rejection rate has started to decline.”8 table 1 Vetted publications and outcomes

Year Number of publications Number of recom- Number of rejected submitted for vetting mended papers papers

2016 252 156 (61.9%) 96 (38.1%) 2017 106 48 (45.3%) 58 (54.7%) 2018 739 422 (57.1%) 317 (42.9%) 2019 412 248 (60.1%) 164 (39.8%) 2020 627 313 (49.9%) 314 (50.1%) Total 2136 1187 (55.6%) 949 (44.4%)

Source: University Publication Committee (UPC) – Statistics of vetted publications for staff promotion, June 2020

8 Telephone interview (06.05.2020). Moreover, in its press release entitled “UDSM Staff Publication in Reputable Journals” of 12th April 2021, the University stated clearly that it has been encouraging academic members of staff to publish their scientific journal articles with international reputable publishers such as Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Springer, Nature, Emerald, SAGE, Wiley, Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard. In that spirit, UDSM recognized eleven (11) academic staff who were able to publish more than ten journal papers with these reputable publishers. Taking into account the total number of academic staff at UDSM, this number appears to be very low. This calls for more interventions by the University in order to increase the number of publications as per its Strategic Plan.

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 24 Makulilo

7 Conclusion

This article intended to examine the question “Does ‘where to publish’ affect academic staff promotion outcome? Generally, the study finds that those who published in high reputable journals were successfully promoted to their respective academic ranks. In contrast, those who published in predatory journals found their papers rejected for promotion. Based on the University target of publishing 2000 journal articles as stipulated in its Corporate Strategic Plan 2014/15–2022/23, it appears clearly that the University is still far below this goal. For the period of eight years from 2012/13 to 2019/20 UDSM was able to publish 4273 journal papers which managed to promote a total number of 186 staff to various ranks as 21 (lecturers), 101 (senior lecturers), 50 (associate professors) and 14 (professors). Specifically, the article finds that the University has relatively well elaborate and adequate promotion guidelines and institutional frameworks to guide staff on “where to publish” in line with its vision of becoming a world-class university. Nonetheless, about 65% of participants in workshops had not seen or read before such guidelines. Likewise, through series of workshops with staff and heads of department as well as interviews with University management, it was observed that there is still little understanding of “where to publish” although the situation is progressively changing. Further, it was found that some staff publish in predatory journals due to ignorance, frequent failures and lack of confidence to publish in credible journals. Lastly, the article establishes that there is higher chance for staff promotion if one publishes with high quality outlets. However, the annual promotion rate remains below 3% suggesting high rejection of publications due to predatory nature of media of publication and failure by majority staff to publish.

References

Adomi, E. E., & Chinedum, M. (2003). Publication in foreign journals and promotion of academics in Nigeria. Learned Publishing, 16, 259–263. Armstrong, M. (2001). A handbook of human resource management practice, 8th edition. Kogan Page. Balehegn, M. (2017). Increased publication in predatory journals by developing countries’ institutions: What it entails? And what can be done? International Information & Library Review, 49(2), 97–100. Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behaviour. University of Chicago Press.

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access Avoiding Mediocrity for Academic Staff Promotion 25

Burgess-Jackson, K. (2020). Why I publish in “predatory” journals – and why you should, too. Philosophy International Journal, 3(4),1–11. Christopher, M. M., & Young, K. M. (2015). Awareness of ‘predatory’ open-access journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending scientiﬁc writing workshops. Frontiers in Veterinary Science Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2, 22. Clark, A. M., & Thompson, D. R. (2017). Five (bad) reasons to publish your research in predatory journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(11), 2499–2501. doi:10.1111/ jan.13090. Cobey, K. D., Grudniewicz, A., Lalu, M. M., Danielle, B. R., Hana, R., & David, M. (2019). Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open, 9, e026516. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2018-026516. Frandsen, T. F. (2019). Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 57–62. Green, D. P., & Ian, S. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. Yale University Press. Green, R. G., & Baskind, F. R. (2007). The second decade of the faculty publication project: Journal article publications and the importance of faculty scholarship. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(2), 281–296. Grgić, I. H., & Guskić, M. (2019). Croatian scientists’ awareness of predatory journals. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15(3), 1–9. doi:10.1007/s40979 -019-0041-5. Harley, D., Acord, S. Krzys., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/ item/15x7385g. Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2018). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyr- anny of the top five. IZA DP No. 11868. Institute of Labour Economics. Hilary, M., Heather R., Philip S., & Martin, W. (2005). Recruitment and retention of academic staff in higher education. National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Research Report No. 658. Jeffrey, F. (1996). The rational choice controversy. Yale University Press. Lakhotia, S. C. (2013). ‘National’ versus ‘international’ journals. Current Science, 105(3), 287–288. Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: sex differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological Review, 58(5), 703–722. Nicholas, D., Blanca, R., Anthony, W., Cherifa, B., Eti, H., Jie, X., Abdullah, A., & Marzena, Ś. (2017). Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 205–217.

The African Review 48 (2021) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 09:15:52AM via free access 26 Makulilo

Nicholas, D., Herman, E., & Jamali, H. R. (2015). Emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars: A literature-based theoretical framework of scholarly activities and a state- of-the-art appraisal of the social networking services used by scholars, to build, maintain and showcase their reputation. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Niles, M. T., Lesley, A. S., Erin, C. M., & Juan, P. A. (2020). Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLOS ONE 15(3), e0228914. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228914. Omobowale, A. O., Akanle, O., Adeniran, A. I., & Adegboyega, K. (2014). Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Current Sociology, 62(5), 666–684. Pyne, D. (2017). The rewards of predatory publications at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 48(3), 137–160. Shaik, F. (2017). Difference between national journal and international journal: An unsolved misleading mystery simplified based upon literature reviews. Technical Report. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28773.81127. Shamseer, L., David, M., Onyi, M., Lucy, T., Virginia, B., Rebecca, B., Jocalyn, C., James, G., Jason, R., & Beverley, J. S. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 28. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9. Ssentongo, J. S. (2020). ‘Which journal is that?’ Politics of academic promotion in Uganda and the predicament of African publication outlets. Critical African Studies, 12(3), 283–301. Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU) (2019). Handbook for standards and guidelines for university education in Tanzania, 3rd edition. TCU. Tettey, W. J. (2006). Staff retention in African universities: Elements of a sustainable strategy. Faculty of Communication and Culture University of Calgary, Alberta Canada. University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) (2016). Guidelines for the assessment of academic staff performance. UDSM. Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in ‘predatory’ journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1406–1417. Youn, T., & Price, T. (2009). Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules in comprehensive institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(2), 204–237.

The AfricanDownloaded Review from 48 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2021) 1–26 09:15:52AM via free access