South African Reaction to the UNESCO Open Science recommendation

Dr. Daniel Adams
Chief-Director: Basic Sciences and Infrastructure, Department of Science and Technology South Africa
Sagren Moodley
Director: Basic Sciences, Department of Science and Innovation, South Africa

UNESCO’s published recommendations on open science are at the top of the scale in terms of significance for the open science movement, because: (a) these recommendations have been negotiated with representatives of 193 nations, including South Africa; (b) the recommendations have been negotiated with representatives of international open science coalitions and collaborations, including the African Open Science Platform (AOSP); (c) UNESCO’s recommendations unite the policies that nations and collaborations have previously put together; and (d) the open science recommendations provide a common framework for national and regional policy.

To make these recommendations a reality, we must do three things:

(1) Negotiate with publishers: Diamond open access must be implemented in countries that are not high income, or bargaining power for open access must be provided for countries that are not high income (see Appendix).

(2) Adopt a national approach: For developing countries, political will, support (including significant financial investment), and national policies to ensure relevance to the specific country and its national context will be key to the adoption and implementation of UNESCO’s open science recommendations. Additionally, a national approach for dealing with costs is needed, both during the transition period and otherwise. A change-management plan is also needed (see Appendix).

(3) View open access as a culture change originating with the scientific community: The scientific community of practice must oversee and own the open science process, including the testing of reward and incentive plans. The scientific community includes many people who know the rising risks involved in scientific security and integrity, and who understand the drivers of research. For this purpose, “science” includes the humanities and social sciences.

Appendix: The observed reality for South Africa

Many non-high-income countries spend more than they can afford on subscriptions (source: Universities of South Africa, USA; SANLIC, South African National Library and Information Consortium). Publishers have already switched paywalls, as predicted, from pay-to-read to pay-to-publish. The effect has been to shift the financial and bureaucratic burden onto authors and research institutions, and they are not ready. The pay-to-publish barrier is likely to limit publications: it is a negative incentive for authorship, especially at historically disadvantaged, higher-education institutions. Libraries and institutions are negotiating transformative agreements to bridge the gap. Current mechanisms are slow and uncertain (December 2021) and involve deploying the South African Government Department of Higher Education and Training Publication Incentive funding, which was previously used for research, on publication instead. This reduces the impact of the largest source of research funding. Countries that are not high income have very little bargaining power, are seeking discounts, and have no guarantee of success in limiting spending. As research output and impact rises, costs rise.