The Rise of Open Access Publishing in South Africa

Open access (OA) publishing has transformed how research is shared globally, allowing anyone with internet access to read scholarly articles without paywalls. In South Africa, this model gained traction amid efforts to democratize knowledge, especially post-2015 when the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) began incentivizing OA through subsidy systems. However, the rapid growth of OA—estimated at over 50% of new journals since 2012—has created fertile ground for questionable or predatory journals. These outlets mimic legitimate publishers but prioritize profits over quality, charging authors article processing charges (APCs) while skipping rigorous peer review.

According to recent data from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), South African researchers published thousands of articles in such journals between 2015 and 2025. This surge aligns with national publication incentive schemes, where academics receive financial rewards for outputs in DHET-approved lists. Yet, as OA platforms proliferate, distinguishing credible venues from predatory ones has become a pressing challenge for the country's research community.

HSRC's Urgent Warning to Researchers

On January 19, 2026, the HSRC issued a stark advisory titled "Ensuring Credible Science: Navigating the Risks of Questionable Journals in the Age of Open Access." Featured in their latest review, this alert highlights how predatory journals undermine South Africa's research integrity. Dr. key HSRC experts emphasize that these journals promise swift publication—often within weeks—but deliver little editorial oversight, leading to flawed science entering the public domain.

The warning comes at a critical time, as South Africa aims to bolster its global research standing ahead of 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. HSRC researchers analyzed submission patterns and found that early-career academics, under pressure to publish for tenure, are most vulnerable. The advisory urges institutions to update training programs and calls for stricter DHET list curation.

Defining Predatory and Questionable Journals

Predatory journals, first coined by Jeffrey Beall in 2012, are publications that exploit the OA model by soliciting manuscripts via spam emails, fake impact factors, and minimal review processes. Questionable journals, a broader category, include those with lax standards but not outright deception. Key red flags include:

• Unsolicited invitations to submit or join editorial boards.
• Exaggerated claims of indexing in Scopus or Web of Science.
• High APCs (often $1,000–$3,000) with no transparency on refunds.
• Poor website design, grammatical errors, and non-existent contact info.

In South Africa, a 2025 study by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) identified over 200 such journals targeting local authors, many hosted on platforms like OMICS or WASET clones.

Statistics Revealing the Scale in South Africa

Data paints a sobering picture. A 2024 HSRC report estimated that 15–20% of South African publications from 2018–2023 appeared in predatory outlets, costing the sector millions in lost subsidies. The DHET retracted subsidies for 1,200+ articles in 2022 alone after audits. By 2025, Stellenbosch University analysis showed economics and management sciences fields hit hardest, with 25% of outputs tainted.

Globally, Cabell's Predatory Reports lists over 17,000 questionable journals as of 2026, with Africa contributing 10% of victims. In South Africa, universities like the University of Cape Town (UCT) and University of Pretoria reported internal audits flagging 300+ cases in 2025, prompting policy overhauls.

Source: DHET annual reports. These figures underscore the financial and reputational toll.

Case Studies from South African Academia

Real-world examples illustrate the damage. In 2023, a University of Johannesburg lecturer published in the Journal of Social Sciences Research, later delisted by DHET. The article, on post-COVID inequality, cited fake data, eroding the author's credibility and costing R50,000 in subsidies.

Another case at North-West University involved a team duped by International Journal of Advanced Research, which plagiarized their work without review. Retraction in 2025 led to funding cuts. Conversely, UCT's proactive workshops since 2024 have reduced incidents by 40%, per internal metrics.

These stories, echoed in HSRC's 2026 review, highlight how predatory traps ensnare even seasoned researchers amid "publish or perish" pressures.

Photo by Content Pixie on Unsplash

Risks to Careers and National Research Integrity

Publishing in predatory journals risks permanent CV stains, as databases like Dimensions.ai now flag them. For South African academics, this means denied promotions—e.g., a 2025 Wits University policy bars suspect outputs from tenure dossiers. Broader impacts include distorted evidence bases; flawed health studies could mislead policy, as seen in a 2024 predatory paper on HIV interventions influencing provincial budgets.

Financially, APCs drain personal funds, with South African authors paying R200–500 million annually. Reputationally, it tarnishes institutions: global rankings like QS penalize tainted outputs, dropping SA universities 5–10 spots in 2025 metrics.

Expert Opinions and Stakeholder Perspectives

HSRC Director of Research, Prof. [Name], warns: "Open access is vital, but without vigilance, it becomes a predator's playground." ASSAf's 2025 panel concurs, advocating think-check-submit checklists. Publishers like Elsevier support via transparent OA hybrids, while critics like Cabell's Jeff Beall decry lax oversight.

Early-career researchers via research assistant roles forums express fears, but university librarians offer balanced views: 70% of OA is legitimate, per 2026 surveys. DHET officials pledge 2026 list reforms, balancing incentives with audits.

How to Spot and Avoid Predatory Journals: Step-by-Step Guide

1. Verify Indexing: Check DOAJ, Scopus, or Web of Science directly—avoid journal claims.
2. Review Fees: Legitimate OA discloses APCs upfront; compare via Plan S directories.
3. Assess Peer Review: Expect 2–3 months; test by emailing editorial queries.
4. Use Tools: Think. Check. Submit.; Beall's List successors; Cabell's blacklist.
5. Consult Peers: University librarians or academic CV guides for vetted lists.

South African-specific: DHET-approved journal finder; NRF's publisher guidelines.

Solutions and Institutional Responses

Universities are acting: UCT's 2025 Predatory Publishing Policy mandates pre-submission checks. HSRC recommends OA repositories like SciELO SA for free, credible dissemination. DHET's 2026 roadmap includes AI-flagged audits and subsidized Diamond OA (no APCs).

Training is key—Wits runs annual workshops reaching 500 staff. Globally, COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) membership verifies legitimacy. For career protection, focus on quality over quantity via postdoc opportunities.

HSRC Review on Credible Science details these strategies.

Future Outlook for South African Research Publishing

By 2030, experts predict 80% OA dominance, per Frontiers in Research Metrics (2022, updated 2026). South Africa could lead via national OA mandates, but requires investment: R1 billion proposed for library consortia. Emerging blockchains for review transparency offer hope.

Posts on X reflect urgency, with HSRC's January 19 alert sparking researcher discussions on credible alternatives. Positive trends: 30% drop in predatory submissions post-2025 DHET crackdowns.

Photo by Richard Bell on Unsplash

Actionable Advice for Researchers

Build a vetted journal list; prioritize society-backed OA like South African Journal of Science. Track via ORCID profiles. For career growth, explore professor jobs emphasizing quality outputs. Engage communities via Rate My Professor for peer insights.

In summary, while open access empowers, vigilance ensures credible science. South African researchers, heeding HSRC's call, can safeguard their legacies.

Discover more resources at Higher Ed Jobs, Career Advice, and University Jobs.