Inequalities in Knowledge Production in Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
In producing knowledge in the Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences (EJAS), the practice follows giving instructions about the tasks to be undertaken, and the information to be included. In this study, 417 authors from 57 affiliations in research, university, professional associations, government organizations, and NGOs were recorded. Characterizing authors, as local and expatriate, 43.8% were local and 56.2% expatriates. This indicates that the journal has addressed publishing needs of the global community as well. From the total contributions by expatriates, 73% were contributed as co-authored articles by local researchers, which could reflect a huge amount of partnership activities among local and expatriate researchers. Multi-authored articles constituted 80.7% of the articles examined in different volumes of EJAS; therefore, it seems that multi-authored knowledge production is intended not occasional in the journal. The results showed that 97.4% of authors in the sampled EJAS volumes were male researchers and academicians; while only 2.6% of authors constitute female scholars. Of the total articles published in the Journal, local and the remaining 6.3% by foreign reviewers reviewed 93.7%. Considering the diversity of institutional affiliations of reviewers, 45.4% were from research, 36.4% from universities, and 18.2% from other institutions such as professional associations, ministries, private establishments and retired professors or researchers. Male authors cited 98% of the total citations; female researchers made whiled 1.8% of citations. Contributing authors in the sampled articles of different domain of research are in different numbers of associations ranging from solo or single authored to five or more authors. In the sampled articles, 166 different associations were identified. The results also show that 87.3% of the findings published in sample volumes reported declarative knowledge structure, whereby, researchers reported on how results or subjects of the research can do or perform. While the remaining 12.7% are procedural knowledge, which shows how things are doing well if certain procedures or conditions are followed.