South Africa’s scholarly publishing sector has a new set of standards to navigate technological disruption, unethical practices and declining public trust.
The 2025 revision of the Code of Best Practice in Scholarly Journal Publishing, Editing, and Peer Review, recently released by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), offers updated ethical and professional guidelines for editors, reviewers, publishers, and authors.
First published in 2004 and revised in 2018, the code has become a cornerstone of the country’s evolving research system. However, the 2025 version is the most comprehensive yet, expanding significantly to address artificial intelligence (AI), open access, data transparency, and diversity in scholarship.
University World News spoke to a cross-section of stakeholders to gather their views.
‘Blueprint for credibility’
“It’s not just a compliance checklist – it’s a blueprint for credibility,” Professor Keyan Tomaselli, chairperson of the Committee on Scholarly Publishing in South Africa (CSPiSA), which was instrumental in the review process, said.
ASSAf describes the revised code as a “milestone in advancing ethical, professional and trustworthy standards in scholarly publishing in South Africa”.
Developed through broad consultation with editors, publishers, and researchers, the code represents a form of self-regulation by the scholarly publishing sector – an effort to uphold standards from within, rather than through external enforcement.
It is part of a broader push to shore up confidence in a research system that has grown rapidly over the past two decades but now faces concerns over quality, equity and integrity.
Growing scepticism toward scientific institutions, politically motivated attacks on expertise, and the global rise of misinformation have sharpened the need for transparent and credible research practices. ASSAf says the revised code contributes to safeguarding academic standards, institutional accountability, and public trust in the country’s research outputs.
Taming the ‘Wild West’
Tomaselli noted that South African publishing in the early 2000s resembled a “Wild West”, with varying peer-review standards and limited governance.
ASSAf’s earlier interventions helped bring order to that space, but new challenges have emerged.
“Technology has changed dramatically. The number of journals in South Africa [now 300+] is unsustainable. Researchers are under pressure to publish – sometimes before they’re ready – and universities are pushing publication output without always understanding the consequences,” he explained.
He added: “The code is meant to be a flexible guide across disciplines – not a one-size-fits-all law. But it offers structure, integrity, and accountability.”
Concern about publication quantity and quality has been growing. The Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University, which is contracted by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) to monitor and evaluate scholarly publishing in South Africa (SA), noted earlier this year that the department’s subsidy system is increasingly vulnerable to “gaming and unethical publication practices by SA or SA-affiliated academics”.
In a March 2025 article in International Higher Education, CREST’s Professor Johann Mouton and Marthie van Niekerk pointed out that more than 14,000 South African papers were published in predatory journals between 2005 and 2023. These papers cost the fiscus at least ZAR319 million (about US$18 million) in incentives.
Process and scope
The 2025 revision of the code was initiated by the National Scholarly Editors’ Forum (NSEF) and drafted by a working group of volunteers from within the forum. The draft was shared for consultation, endorsed by CSPiSA on 20 May, and approved by the ASSAf Council on 18 June.
The code offers practical, comprehensive guidance for editors, reviewers, authors, and publishers. It covers key areas such as editorial independence, peer review, governance, ethical responsibilities, and adherence to evolving scholarly policies.
Coming in under 30 pages, the document is succinct and readable. But it is also clear on enforcement: “Non-compliance of this code may result in actions such as publication retractions or disqualifications.”
The code is aligned with the DHET Research Output Policy (2015) and is backed by a joint statement on ethical research and publishing from ASSAf, the Council on Higher Education (CHE), National Research Foundation (NRF), and Universities South Africa (USAf).
Key revisions
New inclusions, reflecting pressing realities, include the following:
• Journals are encouraged to adopt double-anonymous peer review and maintain detailed records for five years.
• Editorial boards should reflect geographic, institutional, and demographic diversity.
• Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest, and excessive self-citation is discouraged.
• Data availability, ethical clearance, and the archiving of rejected manuscripts are now expected practices.
AI a growing threat
One of the most prominent new challenges addressed in the 2025 code is the use – and potential misuse – of AI in scholarly publishing. The revised document devotes a section to AI, signalling its growing impact.
The code takes a clear position: “AI tools do not qualify for authorship,” it states, adding that their use in manuscript preparation, data analysis, or review processes must be transparently disclosed. Editorial teams are encouraged to develop explicit policies on how AI may be used – and where its application crosses ethical lines.
For Tomaselli, the threat is not hypothetical. He recounted an incident about a book review submitted to Critical Arts, which he co-edits. When a second review by the same author but about a different book arrived a month later, it raised serious concerns about potential AI authorship because it followed the same structure.
Unlike plagiarism, which can be flagged by software such as Turnitin, AI-generated writing often escapes detection.
Stakeholder views
The University of Pretoria (UP), one of South Africa’s top research institutions, welcomed the new code as “a comprehensive and timely document”.
It “offers guidance that enhances ethical editorial conduct, peer-review rigour and publishing transparency,” Isak van der Walt, the acting deputy director of scholarly communications, digital systems and services at UP, said.
The Publishers’ Association of South Africa (PASA), the country’s largest publishing industry body, also welcomed the revised code.
“Scholarly publishing is experiencing a crisis. Unethical behaviour related to AI use, plagiarism, authorship claims, and institutional affiliation is on the rise. Journals need clear, credible benchmarks to maintain integrity,” Wikus van Zyl, PASA’s scholarly sector chairperson, who is also the manager of UJ Press, said.
From the perspective of open-access publishing, AOSIS participated in the consultation phase. AOSIS journals’ commissioning editor Neill van Graan said the code “reinforces shared principles such as research integrity, quality assurance and editorial independence”.
Room for improvement
While most stakeholders agreed the code is a solid step forward, some flagged areas for future development.
For UP, this includes stronger provisions for infrastructure, institutional implementation, and the unique challenges of open science.
For PASA, the focus was on multilingualism, algorithmic ethics, and support for open access. Tomaselli called for publication training for all university academics, just as they regularly receive POPIA or cybersecurity training.
Vital ‘safety net’
The consensus from across the academic and publishing sectors is that the revised code is a much-needed intervention. Its ultimate impact, however, will depend on its uptake.
Professor Leslie Swartz, a distinguished professor of psychology at Stellenbosch University (SU) and NRF A-rated researcher, described the code as “a very good document” and praised the initiative as “an important topic”.
Dr Mike Mostovski, editor-in-chief of Indago and language editor of Culna, both published by the National Museum of South Africa, helped draft the code. He believes the document has significance well beyond national borders.
“It sets a golden standard for scholarly publishing – not just for South Africa, but for the broader Global South,” he said.
But its existence, alone, is significant. As Tomaselli put it: “Without regulation, anything goes. The code is our safety net. I hope every academic – not just editors and publishers – reads it.”