The pressure to publish pushes down quality

Daniel Sarewitz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/533147a

IF: 64.8

2016-05-11

Nature

Abstract:Scientists must publish less, says Daniel Sarewitz, or good research will be swamped by the ever-increasing volume of poor work.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Plea to publish less

Navinder Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.07985

2021-10-08

Abstract:Recent research\cite{fort} has shown that in the 20th century there is an exponential growth of the number of published scientific papers, but new ideas has only a linear growth with time. The 19th and the first half of the 20th century saw major scientific discoveries. But from the second half of the 20th century, the number of publications far exceeds the number of impactful discoveries. Does an exponentially growing number of publications indicate an element of pathological research? Pressure to publish a large number of papers has led to the phenomena of overproduction, unnecessary fragmentations, overselling, predatory journals (pay and publish), clever plagiarism, and deliberate obfuscation of scientific results so as to sell and oversell. This is harming the healthy scientific culture of passion driven research. It is an urgent problem which needs attention of the whole of the scientific community. Some ways to mitigate these grave problems are discussed.

Physics and Society
Does it take too long to publish research?

Kendall Powell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/530148a

IF: 64.8

2016-02-01

Nature

Abstract:Scientists are becoming increasingly frustrated by the time it takes to publish a paper. Something has to change, they say.

multidisciplinary sciences
Perish or Publish in China: Pressures on Young Chinese Scholars to Publish in Internationally Indexed Journals

Mei Tian,Yan Su,Xin Ru

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4020009

2016-01-01

Publications

Abstract:To boost their research productivities, Chinese universities are putting great pressure on their research-active staff to publish in internationally indexed journals. However, the emerging publish-or-perish culture in China has seen little empirical investigation thus far. In the research reported in this article, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven young researchers in science and engineering disciplines at a research-centered university in central China. The study showed that these young scholars faced great pressure to publish papers in internationally indexed journals. Consequently, the participants were reluctant to spend time on other academic activities, including teaching training. They also reported considerable work time devoted to writing, which resulted in fatigue and negatively affected family relations. The participants admitted that they had to rush to publish, and therefore were less likely to produce papers of better quality or those with novel discoveries. The research contributes to our reflection upon Chinese universities’ increasing use of the number of international publications as a major assessment and incentive measurement of their faculties’ academic performance.
Finding the truth in science

Elisabeth M. Bik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-024-00702-w

IF: 78.5

2024-05-17

Nature Reviews Cancer

Abstract:In a 'publish or perish' culture, some scientists may resort to questionable research practices or even fraud. Scientific paper mills and artificial intelligence increasingly threaten the pursuit of truth in science. Structural changes, including heightened scrutiny of papers and authorship and better funding, are needed to ensure scientific integrity.

oncology
Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Salman Y. Guraya,Robert I. Norman,Khalid I. Khoshhal,Shaista Salman Guraya,Antonello Forgione

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.326.10490

2016-11-15

Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Generally, academic promotions, job retention, job mobility, and professional development of a medical faculty members are judged primarily by the growth in publication outputs. Universities and research institutions are more likely to recruit and promote those academics carrying voluminous résumés with larger number of published articles. This review elaborates the causes and consequences of the pressure to publish and the ways and means to cope with this paradigm.METHODS: In 2015, database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, LISTA (EBSCO), Medline and Oxford University Library were searched for the English language full-text articles published during 2000-2015, by using MeSH terms "pressure to publish", "urge to publish", "research ethics", "plagiarism", "article retraction", "medical field". This search was further refined by selecting the articles in terms of relevancy and contents.RESULTS: This research showed that some universities offer generous grants to researchers with a high h-index and with more publications in elite journals, which promise an enhanced prospect of citations and elevation in the scientific rankings of the funding institutions. This generates an involuntary obsession to publish with the primary intention to obtain promotions, high scientific rankings, and improved job security. This compelling pressure to publish results in widespread publication of non-significant research with a high index of plagiarism that eventually leads to an increased frequency of retractions.CONCLUSION: Research centers and academic institutions have an obligation to train their academics in sound scientific writing and to apprise them of the publication ethics and the grave consequences of plagiarism and research misconduct.

medicine, general & internal
Publish or Perish:Pressure Faced by Young Scholars under‘Tenure-track’ Contracts to Publish in International Journals

Mei TIAN,Gen-shu LU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2016.05.003

2016-01-01

Abstract:To boost research output, universities are raising requirement on research-active staff to publish in international journals. Nevertheless, the emerging publish -or -perish culture has rarely been empirically investigated. This article reported a semi-structured interview study on a group of young researchers under‘tenure-track’ contracts at a research-centered university in western China. The study showed that these young scholars were faced with great pressure to publish. The pressure to publish or perish had pushed down research quality. It also detracted from the efforts the participants could have devoted to teaching. Furthermore, the huge pressure, as reported by the participants, negatively affected their health and family relations.
Please, no more scientific journals! The strategy of the scientific publication system

Miguel A. Fortuna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.02927

2019-06-07

Abstract:In the same way ecosystems tend to increase maturity by decreasing the flow of energy per unit biomass, we should move towards a more mature science by publishing less but high-quality papers and getting away from joining large teams in small roles. That is, we should decrease our scientific productivity for good.

Digital Libraries
How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

Hendrik P. van Dalen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03786-x

IF: 3.801

2020-12-17

Scientometrics

Abstract:Abstract The publish-or-perish principle has become a fact of academic life in gaining a position or being promoted. Evidence is mounting that benefits of this pressure is being countered by the downsides, like forms of goal displacement by scientists or unethical practices. In this paper we evaluate whether perceived work pressure (publishing, acquisition funds, teaching, administration) is associated with different attitudes towards science and the workplace among economists working at Dutch universities. Publication pressure is high and is related to faculty position and university ranking position. Based on a latent class analysis we can detect a clear divide among economists. Around two third of the economists perceives that this pressure has upsides as well as serious downsides and one third only perceives upsides and no downsides. Full professors see more than other faculty members the positive sides of the publish-or-perish principle and virtually no downsides. These different perceptions are also reflected in their appreciation of the academic work environment.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause

Duncan E Wright

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.15018

Abstract:Although publication in scholarly peer-reviewed journals remains the gold standard for communication of findings in the life sciences, the gold has been debased in the digital age by various impurities, including (a) reviewer fatigue, (b) fraud, paper mills, and the perils of artificial intelligence, (c) predatory journals, (d) the ongoing use of journal impact factor as a proxy for individual article quality, and (e) salami-slicing and other unethical practices. In this article, I present a detailed overview of these problems, as well as solutions proposed and implemented to counter them. Finally, I suggest that these are all symptomatic of a wider problem, namely the culture of 'publish or perish' and ongoing issues with how researcher performance is evaluated for grant, hiring, and promotion decisions. Only by working towards a global shift in the way scientists view the purpose of publication can we finally remove the impurities and refine the gold.
Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

Jorge Vasconez-Gonzalez,Juan S. Izquierdo-Condoy,Patricio Naranjo-Lara,Miguel Ángel Garcia-Bereguiain,Esteban Ortiz-Prado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424

IF: 3.9

2024-07-17

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the “publish or perish” culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of “paper mills,” and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

medicine, general & internal
The natural selection of good science

Alexander J. Stewart,Joshua B. Plotkin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.00928

2020-03-02

Abstract:Scientists in some fields are concerned that many, or even most, published results are false. A high rate of false positives might arise accidentally, from shoddy research practices. Or it might be the inevitable result of institutional incentives that reward publication irrespective of veracity. Recent models and discussion of scientific culture predict selection for false-positive publications, as research labs that publish more positive findings out-compete more diligent labs. There is widespread debate about how scientific practices should be modified to avoid this degeneration. Some analyses suggest that "bad science" will persist even when labs are incentivized to undertake replication studies, and penalized for publications that later fail to replicate. Here we develop a framework for modelling the cultural evolution of research practices that allows labs to expend effort on theory - enabling them, at a cost, to focus on hypotheses that are more likely to be true on theoretical grounds. Theory restores the evolution of high effort in laboratory practice, and it suppresses false-positive publications to a technical minimum, even in the absence of replication. In fact, the mere ability choose between two sets of hypotheses - one with greater chance of being correct than the other - promotes better science than can be achieved by having effortless access to the better set of hypotheses. Combining theory and replication can have a synergistic effect in promoting good scientific methodology and reducing the rate of false-positive publications. Based on our analysis we propose four simple rules to promote good science in the face of pressure to publish.

Physics and Society,Populations and Evolution
Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Alonzo Alfaro-Núñez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3

Abstract:Background: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. Main body: While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years. Conclusion: There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times.
Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing

Heyang Li,Claudio J Tessone,An Zeng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322462121

2024-05-21

Abstract:While scientific researchers often aim for high productivity, prioritizing the quantity of publications may come at the cost of time and effort dedicated to individual research. It is thus important to examine the relationship between productivity and disruption for individual researchers. Here, we show that with the increase in the number of published papers, the average citation per paper will be higher yet the mean disruption of papers will be lower. In addition, we find that the disruption of scientists' papers may decrease when they are highly productive in a given year. The disruption of papers in each year is not determined by the total number of papers published in the author's career, but rather by the productivity of that particular year. Besides, more productive authors also tend to give references to recent and high-impact research. Our findings highlight the potential risks of pursuing productivity and aim to encourage more thoughtful career planning among scientists.
Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

David Robert Grimes,Chris T. Bauch,John P. A. Ioannidis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171511

IF: 3.5

2018-01-01

Royal Society Open Science

Abstract:Scientific publication is immensely important to the scientific endeavour. There is, however, concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive, allowing careless and fraudulent conduct to thrive, compounded by the predisposition of top-tier journals towards novel, positive findings rather than investigations confirming null hypothesis. This potentially compounds a reproducibility crisis in several fields, and risks undermining science and public trust in scientific findings. To date, there has been comparatively little modelling on factors that influence science trustworthiness, despite the importance of quantifying the problem. We present a simple phenomenological model with cohorts of diligent, careless and unethical scientists, with funding allocated by published outputs. This analysis suggests that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.

multidisciplinary sciences
The strain on scientific publishing

Mark A. Hanson,Pablo Gómez Barreiro,Paolo Crosetto,Dan Brockington

2024-07-15

Abstract:Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. Total articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science have grown exponentially in recent years; in 2022 the article total was approximately ~47% higher than in 2016, which has outpaced the limited growth - if any - in the number of practising scientists. Thus, publication workload per scientist (writing, reviewing, editing) has increased dramatically. We define this problem as the strain on scientific publishing. To analyse this strain, we present five data-driven metrics showing publisher growth, processing times, and citation behaviours. We draw these data from web scrapes, requests for data from publishers, and material that is freely available through publisher websites. Our findings are based on millions of papers produced by leading academic publishers. We find specific groups have disproportionately grown in their articles published per year, contributing to this strain. Some publishers enabled this growth by adopting a strategy of hosting special issues, which publish articles with reduced turnaround times. Given pressures on researchers to publish or perish to be competitive for funding applications, this strain was likely amplified by these offers to publish more articles. We also observed widespread year-over-year inflation of journal impact factors coinciding with this strain, which risks confusing quality signals. Such exponential growth cannot be sustained. The metrics we define here should enable this evolving conversation to reach actionable solutions to address the strain on scientific publishing.

Digital Libraries
Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability

Brian A. Nosek,Jeffrey Robert Spies,Matt Motyl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/k4bgq

2016-08-29

Abstract:An academic scientist’s professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive – getting it right – competitive with the more tangible and concrete incentive – getting it published. We develop strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.
We need better and more PopSci by scientists

Agustín Fuentes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq8026

IF: 56.9

2024-07-19

Science

Abstract:Any scientist knows that to be a good scientist, they must conduct thoughtful research; generate high-quality, verifiable results and analyses; and get them into circulation in the scientific community. However, what often goes underappreciated is that this good science will likely remain ignored by most of the world if one doesn't find a way to get it out beyond the scientific community. Unfortunately, when it comes to making our science accessible, we scientists all too often fall short. And that's when the nonscientist public turn to other nonscientists they can understand. Hence, we find ourselves in a world shaped by a lot of misguided, and often erroneous, information about science.

multidisciplinary sciences
And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing

Matthew J. Michalska-Smith,Stefano Allesina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178074

IF: 3.7

2017-06-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Scientists often perceive a trade-off between quantity and quality in scientific publishing: finite amounts of time and effort can be spent to produce few high-quality papers or subdivided to produce many papers of lower quality. Despite this perception, previous studies have indicated the opposite relationship, in which productivity (publishing more papers) is associated with increased paper quality (usually measured by citation accumulation). We examine this question in a novel way, comparing members of the National Academy of Sciences with themselves across years, and using a much larger dataset than previously analyzed. We find that a member's most highly cited paper in a given year has more citations in more productive years than in in less productive years. Their lowest cited paper each year, on the other hand, has fewer citations in more productive years. To disentangle the effect of the underlying distributions of citations and productivities, we repeat the analysis for hypothetical publication records generated by scrambling each author's citation counts among their publications. Surprisingly, these artificial histories re-create the above trends almost exactly. Put another way, the observed positive relationship between quantity and quality can be interpreted as a consequence of randomly drawing citation counts for each publication: more productive years yield higher-cited papers because they have more chances to draw a large value. This suggests that citation counts, and the rewards that have come to be associated with them, may be more stochastic than previously appreciated.

multidisciplinary sciences
Time to Rethink Academic Publishing: the Peer Reviewer Crisis.

Carolina Tropini,B Brett Finlay,Mark Nichter,Melissa K Melby,Jessica L Metcalf,Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello,Liping Zhao,Margaret J McFall-Ngai,Naama Geva-Zatorsky,Katherine R Amato,Eduardo A Undurraga,Hendrik N Poinar,Jack A Gilbert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01091-23

IF: 6.4

2023-01-01

mBio

Abstract:There is concern that the time taken to publish academic papers in microbiological science has significantly increased in recent years. While the data do not specifically support this, evidence suggests that editors are having to invite more and more reviewers to identify those willing to perform peer review.
Publishing in the Open Access and Open Science era

Masanori Arita,Bernd Pulverer,Tadashi Uemura,Chisako Sakuma,Shigeo Hayashi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gtc.13100

2024-02-15

Genes to Cells

Abstract:In this article, current issues in research publication—increasing journal subscription cost and APC, and the hypercompetitive situation of researchers and publishers—are presented and the future of open science is discussed. Our research activities would be better served if they were communicated in a manner that is openly accessible to the public and all researchers. The research we share is often limited to representative data included in research papers—science would be much more efficient if all reproducible research data were shared alongside detailed methods and protocols, in the paradigm called Open Science. On the other hand, one primary function of research journals is to select manuscripts of good quality, verify the authenticity of the data and its impact, and deliver to the appropriate audience for critical evaluation and verification. In the current paradigm, where publication in a subset of journals is intimately linked to research evaluation, a hypercompetitive "market" has emerged where authors compete to access a limited number of top‐tier journals, leading to high rejection rates. Competition among publishers and scientific journals for market dominance resulted in an increase in both the number of journals and the cost of publishing and accessing scientific papers. Here we summarize the current problems and potential solutions from the development of AI technology discussed in the seminar at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan.

cell biology,genetics & heredity

The pressure to publish pushes down quality

Plea to publish less

Does it take too long to publish research?

Perish or Publish in China: Pressures on Young Chinese Scholars to Publish in Internationally Indexed Journals

Finding the truth in science

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Publish or Perish:Pressure Faced by Young Scholars under‘Tenure-track’ Contracts to Publish in International Journals

Please, no more scientific journals! The strategy of the scientific publication system

How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause

Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

The natural selection of good science

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing

Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

The strain on scientific publishing

Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability

We need better and more PopSci by scientists

And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing

Time to Rethink Academic Publishing: the Peer Reviewer Crisis.

Publishing in the Open Access and Open Science era