---
title: "When a journal falls off the education department list, academics shouldn’t pay the price"
description: "A journal that falls off the Department of Higher Education and Training-accredited list can have serious consequences for academics where careers are influenced and past research invalidated."
type: "OpinionNewsArticle"
publisher: "Daily Maverick"
site: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za"
section: "Opinionistas"
author: "Kablan Effossou"
author_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/kablan-effossou/"
canonical_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2026-07-28-when-a-journal-falls-off-the-education-department-list-academics-shouldnt-pay-the-price/"
published: "2026-07-28T00:22:52"
lang: "en-ZA"
word_count: 636
---

# When a journal falls off the education department list, academics shouldn’t pay the price

> A journal that falls off the Department of Higher Education and Training-accredited list can have serious consequences for academics where careers are influenced and past research invalidated.

By Kablan Effossou · Published 28 July 2026, 02:22 SAST

## Content

![Image](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/ToEp388PygKxbVnnboBpUQ3buys=/200x100/smart/filters:strip_exif\(\)/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/label-Opinion.jpg)

South Africa’s higher education system relies heavily on the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) accredited journal list to determine research subsidies, academic performance, promotion criteria and institutional prestige. Academics are repeatedly encouraged to publish in journals that appear on the department’s list, often after lengthy peer review processes and significant financial and intellectual investment.

But what happens when a researcher publishes in a journal that is accredited at the time of publication, only for that journal to be removed from the DHET list years later? More importantly, who should be held accountable, and who should bear the consequences? The answer should be straightforward: researchers who acted in good faith should not be punished.

Academics make publication decisions based on the information available at the time of submission and publication. If a journal appears on the official DHET list, scholars have every reason to believe that it satisfies the required quality and accreditation standards. Researchers do not have the authority to accredit journals, nor do they have access to the detailed evaluations used by DHET and other indexing agencies. Their responsibility is to conduct ethical research and submit it to journals that are officially recognised.

The responsibility for maintaining and monitoring accredited journal lists rests primarily with regulatory authorities, accreditation bodies, indexing services, publishers and institutions. If weaknesses in quality assurance processes emerge later, these should be addressed through improved oversight rather than retrospective punishment of authors.

Retrospective penalties raise serious concerns about fairness and legal certainty. Academic careers are built over many years. Promotions, graduations, National Research Foundation ratings, performance assessments and institutional subsidies may have been awarded based on publications that were fully compliant with existing regulations at the time. Revisiting these decisions years later would create uncertainty throughout the higher education sector.

Consider the implications. A doctoral graduate may have completed a degree partly based on accredited publications. An early-career researcher may have secured employment or promotion using outputs recognised by the DHET. An institution may have received government subsidy payments based on those publications. If a journal is subsequently removed, should all these decisions be reversed? Such an approach would be impractical, disruptive and fundamentally unfair.

This does not mean that journal delisting should have no consequences. Where evidence reveals predatory practices, fraudulent peer review, citation manipulation or publisher misconduct, action should be taken. Publishers who violate standards should face sanctions. Institutions should strengthen due diligence processes. Regulatory agencies should improve monitoring mechanisms and communicate risks more effectively to researchers.

However, there is an important distinction between deliberate misconduct and reasonable reliance on an official accreditation system. An author who knowingly publishes in a fraudulent journal despite clear warnings may bear some responsibility. By contrast, an author who publishes in a journal listed by the DHET cannot reasonably be accused of wrongdoing.

A fair principle should guide policy: accreditation decisions should apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Publications produced while a journal was officially accredited should continue to receive recognition. Delisting should affect future submissions, not past publications that complied with the rules at the time.

The integrity of South Africa’s research system depends not only on quality assurance but also on trust. Researchers must be able to rely on official lists and policy guidance. If academics cannot trust the accreditation status of journals approved by authorities, uncertainty will undermine confidence in the entire scholarly publishing ecosystem.

When a journal is removed from the DHET list, accountability should focus on the causes of the delisting and the systems that failed to detect problems earlier. Punishing researchers who followed the rules is neither just nor constructive. The burden of accreditation should remain with those empowered to grant and monitor it, not with scholars who relied on it in good faith.

In the pursuit of academic integrity, fairness must remain as important as accountability. **DM**