The Thwarted Progress of Open Access in Indonesia

Four years ago, Indonesia was one of the top producers of open-access documents (Irawan et al., 2020; Van Noorden, 2019). As a result, Indonesian academics have many Indonesian-written open access journals to submit to. However, they now face a problem: to gain wider recognition, as demanded by global university rankings, Indonesian academics often rely on foreign platforms that publish in English and come with high costs, straining their budgets. Academics also face stringent regulations from Indonesia’s Ministry of Education and Culture, which adheres to a global ranking system that emphasizes publishing in high-impact journals. These regulations distort the open-access initiative by prioritizing costly, high-profile journals, encouraging shortcuts and potential misconduct among academics, and limiting research accessibility. These strategic choices could impact Indonesia’s long-term standing as an leader of open access (Irawan et al., 2024).

History of Open Access in Indonesia

Open access journals in Indonesia have operated as non-profits since the 1970s (Irawan et al., 2021). The journals are usually managed by universities or government offices with government funding, and staffed by volunteers or employees whose duties include journal work. Initially, issues were printed and distributed to libraries; they eventually moved online using platforms like Blogspot or WordPress, and later to the Public Knowledge Project’s (PKP) Open Journal System, of which Indonesia is the largest user. Peer reviews were conducted voluntarily by experts, mostly university lecturers (RJI, 2024; 2021). In recent years, Indonesian journals have started paying moderate salaries to journal managers and providing honoraria to accepted authors and reviewers. This approach once embodied the true essence of community-led academic publishing.

The Era of Rankings

The movement toward university rankings in Indonesia began in the early 2000s when the Ministry of Education introduced the concept of World University Rankings. Notable rankings include Webometrics, Times Higher Education (THE), QS World University Rankings, and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). These rankings gradually became the standard for evaluating and ranking universities in Indonesia (Tennant, 2020; Irawan et al., 2021; Kusumawati et al., 2020). The introduction of these rankings was particularly embraced by the newly autonomous universities—state-owned public institutions that had recently been granted more control over managing their own funding. These institutions were most enthusiastic about using global ranking criteria to enhance their campuses’ reputations.

In this era, the Scopus database was introduced as a reputable academic resource, becoming a key criterion for prestige: Indonesian journals were evaluated for their quality and reputation based on their inclusion. Then, gradually, the Web of Science (WoS) database was introduced as an even more reputable scientific database than Scopus (Dirjen Dikti, 2019; Pemerintah Indonesia, 2024a).

Slowly but surely, the Ministry of Education has added the Scopus standards into its pool of criteria, creating scores of Indonesian journals and ranking them with the Science and Technology Index (SINTA) platform. The status of each journal is determined by factors including their indexing in Scopus and/or WoS, citation scores based on the Scimago list and Journal Impact Factor, and the nationalities of the personnel managing the journal (Dirjen Dikti, 2019; Pemerintah Indonesia, 2024a).

A Shift in Priorities

Despite its promising start, open access in Indonesia is unlikely to progress due to the rigid restrictions enforced by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (DIKTI) (Pemerintah Indonesia, 2024b).

These rules dictate that research in scientific journals must be open access to the public.

However, “open access” mainly refers to journals from big publishers with high fees. With the limited funding it offers researchers (in the range of IDR 50.000.000,00 to IDR 150.000.000,00), which is often less than the fee itself, DIKTI’s rule often forces researchers to pay out of their own pockets or get other funding to publish in these journals (Sudrajat et al., 2024).

Why are Indonesian researchers still targeting publishers with expensive article processing charges (APCs)? Why are they not using many OA journals with low or no APCs listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)? The answer is simple: those DOAJ journals mostly do not meet DIKTI’s criteria for reputable journals. This distinction results in a vicious circle. To advance their careers, academics must continue to publish, which is why Indonesian academics still aim for expensive journals.

Distorted University Policies

In response to DIKTI’s regulations, Indonesian universities are increasingly using derivative indicators based on those employed by global university rankings—or, frankly speaking, distorted by global rankings (Baker, 2020; Frey & Rost, 2010). The focus of these new regulations is to increase the sum of universities entering global ranking, with an emphasis on articles published in high-impact journals. However, these rankings rely on indicators that cannot be fully implemented in Indonesia and other similar countries, such as utilizing English as the main academic publishing language, thereby perpetuating the dominance of traditional Western ranking metrics.

These distortions are even more evident when held up to the Indonesian system of Tridharma, which directs academics to engage in three major areas: education, research, and community outreach. DIKTI’s focus on traditional ranking metrics has skewed Indonesian policies and budgets towards high-cost open-access publishing, as promoted by major Western publishers, limiting the ability of Indonesian academics to perform their duties of Tridharma. For instance, most (if not all) of their work is conducted and completed in Indonesian, but the criteria require them to publish in English. This could potentially lead to a distortion of the open access initiative, steering it away from its original goal of making research accessible and affordable.

Academic Shortcuts and Misconduct

Adding to the problem, many Indonesian academics are now taking shortcuts because of the current publishing regulations. They are looking for quick success, often ignoring the importance of honesty in their work.

This phenomenon is not confined to Indonesia. Researchers and academics in many countries face similar challenges when it comes to the pressure of publishing in high-impact, expensive journals. This pressure often leads to a compromise in academic integrity and the quality of research, as individuals prioritize meeting institutional demands and advancing their careers over producing genuinely impactful work (Frey & Rost, 2010; Bonn & Pinxten, 2019; Zhaksylyk et al., 2023). Researches might also take unethical actions, like submitting to predatory journals that draw money (APCs) from authors but lack proper reviews and standards. These journals exploit the need for quick publication and can spread low-quality or fake research (Besançon et al., 2022; Mahajan & Mali, 2021).

Moreover, focusing on prestigious journals can distract academics from the main goal of research, which is to add valuable knowledge to the field. Researchers might cut corners, manipulate data, or skip thorough studies just to meet deadlines and requirements. This harms the credibility of the academic community and can reduce public trust in scientific research. Recently, several cases have come to light which highlight this growing concern (Irawan et al., 2024; Cabanac et al., 2022; Tennant et al., 2017).

The Need for a Broader Approach

Indonesia's current approach to open science is limited. Proportionally, it’s like the size of the sun's hot spot compared to the size of the sun. The regulations focus only on open access and World Class University Metrics, and do so for the wrong reasons. As citizens of the Global South, Indonesians need to work to build a more relevant global context. Moving away from biased ranking systems and collaborating with other Global South nations could help build a more equitable publishing environment that values academic contributions based on genuine impact rather than rankings.

Instead of spending money on high-cost journals to achieve “world-class” status, we should invest in our own institutions and journals, improving the quality and accessibility of our research. This means supporting local journals, providing fair compensation to researchers and reviewers, and ensuring that our academic policies prioritize integrity and genuine scientific advancement over rankings. Programs like Open Science Indonesia and the RINarxiv Preprint Service, and mandatory research depositories by BRIN and BINUS, should not only be maintained but also expanded and actively promoted. This will make research findings more accessible, encourage collaboration among researchers, and drive innovation. These steps are essential for making scientific knowledge available to everyone and spreading important discoveries.

To restore and protect academic honesty, Indonesian institutions need to rethink their criteria for reputable journals. They should focus on the overall impact and quality of research, not just the journal’s prestige. Promoting transparent, ethical research practices and supporting open-access initiatives that don’t charge high fees can help create a more honest and reliable academic environment.

Future Outlook

The Open Access movement still exists in Indonesia, but given the current situation, its potential progress is stalled. Indonesia and other Global South nations may have fewer resources, but it is essential that they maintain academic and research integrity and assert their value without relying on biased indicators to be labeled as world-class universities.

International organizations have a crucial role to play. For instance, the choice by Utrecht University, Zurich University, and three top Chinese universities to leave international university rankings could boost the movement for responsible metrics started by the Leiden Manifesto and San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment SFDORA (Brent, 2024; UZH Communications, 2024; Sharma, 2022; DORA,n.d.; Hicks, D. et al, n.d.)). These examples could help shift the focus from rankings to a broader view of universities’ roles, including teaching, societal impact, and open science. This could lead other universities to rethink their participation in rankings and align with more responsible metrics and principles.

Global South nations can collaborate to share resources, ideas, and support to make our research more impactful and accessible without relying on expensive and often exclusive publishing platforms. Building a network of open-access journals within the Global South can help us publish and share our research more freely, creating a more inclusive and fair academic community. If we work together and focus on the true goals of open science, we can create a reputable and inclusive academic community that benefits everyone.

References

Akademia Sains Malaysia. (n.d.). Malaysia Open Science Platform. https://mosp.gov.my/about

Baker, J. (2020, November). Global Rankings Are Distorting Universities’ Decisions, Says ANU Chief. Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/global-rankings-are-distorting-universities-decisions-says-anu-chief-20201111-p56do9.html

Besançon, L., Bik, E., Heathers, J., & Meyerowitz-Katz, G.. (2022). Correction of Scientific Literature: Too Little, Too Late! PLoS Biol., 20 (3): e3001572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001572

Bonn, N.A., & Pinxten, W. (2019). A Decade of Empirical Research on Research Integrity: What Have We (Not) Looked At? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 14 (4), 338–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619858534

Brent, T. (2024, August). Utrecht University Withdraws from Global Ranking as Debate on Quantitative Metrics Grows. Science Business. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/universities/utrecht-university-withdraws-global-ranking-debate-quantitative-metrics-grows

Cabanac,G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A.. (2022, October). The ‘Problematic Paper Screener’ Automatically Selects Suspect Publications for Post-Publication (Re)Assessment. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.04895

DORA. (n.d.). San Fransisco Declaration on Research Assessment (SF-DORA). https://sfdora.org/read

Dikti, D. (2019). Pedoman Operasional Penilaian Angka Kredit (POPAK) Kenaikan Jabatan Akademik/Pangkat Dosen 2019. https://kepegawaian.itera.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PO-PAK-2019_MULAI-BERLAKU-APRIL-2019-1.pdf

EIFL. (2013, October). The Central Open Access Repository in Nepal - EIFL. https://www.eifl.net/resources/central-open-access-repository-nepal

Frey, B., & Rost, K. (2010). Do Rankings Reflect Research Quality? Journal of Applied Economics 13 (1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1514-0326(10)60002-5

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (n.d.). Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. August 2024. http://www.leidenmanifesto.org

Irawan, D.E., Abraham, J., Zein, R.A., Ridlo, I.A., & Aribowo, E.K. (2021). Open Access in Indonesia. Development and Change 52 (3), 651–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12637

Irawan, D.E., Pourret, O., Besançon, L., Herho, S.H., Ridlo, I.A., & Abraham, J. (2024). Post-Publication Review: The Role of Science News Outlets and Social Media. RINarxiv.. https://rinarxiv.brin.go.id/lipi/preprint/view/840

Irawan, D.E., Priadi, B., Muharlisiani, L.T., Onie, S., & Rusnalasari, Z.D. (2020, October). Indonesia Publishes the Most Open-Access Journals in the World: What It Means for Local Research. The Conversation Indonesia. https://theconversation.com/indonesia-publishes-the-most-open-access-journals-in-the-world-what-it-means-for-local-research-147421

Kusumawati, N., Nurhaeni, I., and Nugroho, R. (2020). Internationalization of Indonesia Higher Education: Does Government Support? International Journal of Education and Social Science Research 03 (01), 173–80. https://doi.org/10.37500/ijessr.2020.3015

Mahajan, D. S., & Mali, N. A. (2021). Preventing Predatory Publications: Role of Librarian and Government Agencies. IP Indian Journal of Library Science and Information Technology 6 (1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijlsit.2021.001

OGDS. (2017). Bangladesh - Open Government Data Strategy. Government of Bangladesh - Statistics and Informatics Division Ministry of Planning. https://sid.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/sid.portal.gov.bd/notices/e1531b3c_460d_49a6_82bf_36b9b61b8b1d/Open%20Government%20Data%28OGD%29%20Strategy%202016.pdf

Pemerintah Indonesia. (2024a). Petunjuk Teknis Pelaksanaan Layanan Pembinaan Dan Pengembangan Profesi Dan Karier Dosen (POPAK 2024). Vol. No. 209/P/2024. https://lldikti4.kemdikbud.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Lampiran-2_PO-PAK-2024-Kepmendikbudristek-1.pdf

———. (2024b). UU No. 11 Tahun 2019 Tentang Sistem Nasional Ilmu Pengetahuan Dan Teknologi. Database Peraturan JDIH BPK. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/117023/uu-no-11-tahun-2019

Relawan Jurnal Indonesia. (2021, January). Rezeki Proyek Untuk Kelola Jurnal. https://relawanjurnal.id/rezeki-proyek-untuk-kelola-jurnal

———. (2024, August). Profil NGO Di Indonesia. https://sites.google.com/cimsa.or.id/profil-ngo-di-indonesia/relawan-jurnal-indonesia

Sharma, Y. (2022, May 11). Three Major Universities Quit International Rankings. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220511170923665

Sheikh, A. (2020). The International Open Access Movement and Its Status in Pakistan. Libraries and the Academy 20 (1), 15–31. https://preprint.press.jhu.edu/portal/sites/default/files/20.1sheikh.pdf

STIP. (2020). Draft - Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy (STIP) 2020. Government of India Ministry of Science and Technology. https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STIP_Doc_1.4_Dec2020.pdf

Sudrajat, D., Iskandar, D., & Makarim, F.H. (2024). Lemahnya Sistem Pendanaan Riset Di Indonesia Semakin Terasa Di Tengah Pandemi: Berikut Pengalaman Para Dosen. Conversation. https://theconversation.com/lemahnya-sistem-pendanaan-riset-di-indonesia-semakin-terasa-di-tengah-pandemi-berikut-pengalaman-para-dosen-183442

Tennant, J.P. (2020). Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge. European Science Editing 46 (October):e51987. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987

Tennant, J.P., Dugan, J.M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D.C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., et al. (2017). A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review. F1000Research 6 (1151), 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3

UZH Communications. (2024, August). UZH to No Longer Provide Data for THE Ranking. UZH Communications. https://www.news.uzh.ch/en/articles/news/2024/rankings.html

Van Noorden, R. (2019, May). Indonesia Tops Open-Access Publishing Charts. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01536-5

Zhaksylyk, A., Zimba, O., Yessirkepov, M., & Kocyigit, B.F. (2023). Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading. J. Korean Med. Sci. 38 (47). https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405