Western colonization of nations has long ended however it appears that many of the affected
people particularly Africans are still captive of Western-imposed mentality and standards.
Globafricalisation a newly coined term partly expressed as the westernisation of researches
and research outputs from Africa is critically examined in this study. The emphasis on the
global outlook and worldwide rating or ranking of researchers their researches and their
institutions partly prompted this research work. The perspectives of researchers from
developing countries were sought through the administration of online survey and data obtained
and were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical methods. The survey results
indicate that majority of African academics are concerned about the issue and desire a paradigm
shift to be supported by institutional administrators and policy makers. The phenomenon of
Globafricalisation which includes the pressure to fit into the Western-imposed model despite
the deficit of research support infrastructures may in part be fueling the push for global
institutional and research rating by various institutions in Africa. No doubt all institutions
want a high ranking on a global scale but the apparent questions are: what parameters are
ranked and how acceptable reputable and transparently flawless are the processes involved? In
the same context the ranking and or assessment of academics and researchers ranking based on a
journal impact factor or prevalent citation metrics is inherently flawed with several
consequences particularly for the developing nations it not only impairs the development of
sound science but limits the sustainable exploration and expansion of indigenous knowledge for
regional advancement. Numerous major flaws in the rating and ranking of researchers and
institutions respectively were highlighted in this work. Furthermore a detailed perspective of
researchers in the African region was analyzed and recommendations made. It is obvious that as
academics based in Africa are drowning in the flood of Globafricalisation research and
indigenous innovations are most negatively impacted as best brains and research outputs
including publications and patents are carried headlong to the advanced world which is
relatively saturated. Globafricalisation undermines the full exploration of African potentials
to tackle her peculiar challenges and optimally utilize resources. Therefore the
de-Globafricalisation of knowledge production indigenous knowledge sharing and the general
paradigm shift of the developing countries perception must be a priority for all stakeholders.
The Globafricalisation crave that seems to promote the inter-continental collaborations and
publications at the expense of intra-continental publications and national growth should be
curtailed. Obviously developing countries must steer innovation creativity and re-evaluate
their overall priority dependence on the western counterparts and institution ranking metric
system. They should develop a sustainable metrification needed for their regional development
and profitable exploration of indigenous knowledge promote rapid sustainable regional
development competition visibility and seek global relevance. The authors have taken a bold
step by developing some new metrics apposite for both single and multi-disciplinary evaluation
of research and researchers. We have provided very easy-to-use expression to compute: i.
Normalized Impact Factor approximation which may be useful for the ease of comparison of JIF
within fields in a discipline. ii. Total Citation Impact metric for the evaluation of a
research article in its field. This measures a paper s citation per year of existence. iii.
Adjusted Author Impact Factor metric for evaluating the impact of authors within fields
(depends on citations). iv. Weighted Author I
