The Publish or Perish Paradox

In the hallowed halls of academia, a spectre looms large over lecturers, professors, and researchers alike. It’s the omnipresent dictate of “publish or perish,” a mantra that has become as much a part of academic culture as cap and gown ceremonies or late-night study sessions. Yet, a deep dive into this phenomenon uncovers a paradox that threatens the fabric of intellectual pursuit, knowledge dissemination and, well, common sense.

The phrase “publish or perish” isn’t just a catchy aphorism; it’s a stark reality for many in academia. The pressure to publish in scholarly journals is a key metric in determining the career trajectory of academics. It influences promotions, tenure/permanency decisions, and even self-worth. However, the relentless pursuit of publication, often at the expense of quality and innovation, has led to a paradoxical situation where the quantity of research overshadows its quality and societal impact.

The commodification of research has significant implications. First and foremost, it fosters a culture of quantity over quality. Even where quality is encouraged over quantity, the sheer number of academics, worldwide, vying for scarce real estate in top-tier journals (top 50%) means it is an effort in futility. Here are some numbers:

• There were 5.14 million academic papers published in 2022 in over 47,000 scholarly journals – a 22.78% growth rate over five years (Words Rated).

According to Chen (2019), the average impact factor of an SCI was 10.95, and for SSCI, it was 5.18 – an average of 8.07. The number of articles published annually in SCI and SSCI journals was 86 and 32, respectively, with an average of 59. Using the Web of Science, 3,216 journals had impact factors over 8.07; therefore:

• 3,216 good journals x 59 articles per year = 190,000 journal articles in the top 50%.

In 2023, there are estimated to be more than 11 million academics worldwide, all presumably vying for the 190,000 journal articles spots available in the top 50% of journals.

This is nuts!

This pressure cooker environment cultivates an ecosystem that can have a demoralising effect on academics. The constant grind to produce publishable research, coupled with the fear of career stagnation or decline, often leads to burnout and dissatisfaction. This is particularly true for early-career researchers who find themselves navigating an increasingly competitive landscape with fewer tenure-track/permanent positions available. Don’t even get me started on Competitive Academic Grants! I’ll leave that for another post.

The paradox here extends beyond individual researchers to the broader academic community and society at large. As academics focus on churning out papers, there’s less emphasis on teaching, mentoring, and engaging with the students and society. This can erode the quality of education and widen the gap between academia and the real world, limiting the societal impact of research.

Furthermore, the obsession with publishing in high-impact journals has given rise to a problematic publishing industrial complex – 5.14m articles in 47,000 academic journals!!! We are finding that the business of pay-for-publishing (vanity publishing) has become an indispensable pathway for academics who can’t gain access to top-tier or other reputable journals but still face the publish or perish paradox to keep their jobs. Then, there is the business of access to research findings, which trumps the dissemination of knowledge. Behind paywalls and subscription fees, much of the best-published research remains inaccessible to the general public and even to other academics, contradicting the fundamental principle of knowledge sharing that underpins academic research.

So, what’s the solution? We need a paradigm shift in how academic success is measured and rewarded. This involves recognising and valuing a broader range of scholarly activities. Teaching excellence, mentorship, public engagement, and the real-world impact of research should be given greater weight in academic evaluations. Additionally, there should be more support on both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, we need support for high-risk, high-reward research that challenges conventional wisdom. On the other hand, we should be supporting localised research that can have a profound impact on the community for the greater good but might not have the appeal for a global readership.

While the “publish or perish” culture has driven a significant amount of research activity, it has also led to a paradox where the number of publications can overshadow research quality and societal relevance. Research for the sake of publication to boost one’s probability of promotion, rather than preserving the integrity and societal value of academic work, should be discouraged. Instead, we must redefine the success metrics in academia and foster an environment that values depth, innovation, and real-world impact over mere publication counts. Only then can academia fulfil its role as a bastion of knowledge and progress.