Africa’s Research Revolution Stalled: Why Preprints Aren’t Catching On
Despite their promise to revolutionize open access and collaboration, preprints are struggling to gain traction in Africa’s research community. But here’s where it gets controversial: could deeply rooted career incentives, outdated infrastructure, and lackluster policy support be the real culprits behind this slow adoption? Experts at a recent webinar hosted by the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (Inasp), and the Academy of Science of South Africa (Assaf) shed light on this pressing issue.
The webinar, held on November 12, focused on the role of funders in advancing open access publishing across the continent. Susan Veldsman, Assaf’s scholarly publishing director, delivered a stark reality check: despite significant efforts to promote preprints—which allow researchers to share draft articles before peer review—adoption remains disappointingly low. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not just about awareness; it’s about aligning preprints with what researchers truly value and need.
“Researchers simply aren’t interested in preprints right now,” Veldsman noted. “We’ve launched extensive services, including open research repositories, but they’re not gaining momentum.” Her remarks followed a presentation by Alice Chadwick El-Ali, who leads an Inasp project advocating for publishing reform. El-Ali highlighted that preprints could expedite research dissemination—but only if they’re formally recognized in research assessment frameworks.
The Incentive Trap
Nokuthula Mchunu, an open science advocate at South Africa’s National Research Foundation, pointed to a deeper issue: the entrenched focus on impact factor journals. “Research assessment is heavily researcher-driven,” she explained. Review panels often lack metrics to evaluate non-traditional outputs like preprints, making it difficult for researchers to embrace new models. “Until openness is rewarded, open science will remain an uphill battle,” she added.
Martin Ongol, executive secretary of Uganda’s National Council for Science and Technology, echoed these concerns. Many African universities still prioritize conventional publishing metrics, while gaps in infrastructure and digitization further hinder open access. Here’s a thought-provoking question: Are we asking researchers to adopt preprints without addressing the systemic barriers that discourage them?
Tailoring Solutions to African Needs
Veldsman emphasized the need for a tailored approach. “We shouldn’t promote open access for its own sake,” she said. “We must clearly identify what Africa—and South Africa specifically—needs to thrive in this space.” This includes addressing the hefty article processing charges (APCs) imposed by open access journals, which panelists argued perpetuate commercial publishing models. A bold interpretation: Redirecting APC funds to upgrade local publishing infrastructure could be a game-changer.
Better connectivity, repository infrastructure, and data management support were also cited as essential for boosting open access. However, panelists agreed that none of these solutions would succeed without rethinking how research quality is rewarded. What do you think? Is the slow adoption of preprints in Africa a failure of advocacy, or a symptom of deeper systemic issues? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that could shape the future of African research.
