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

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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
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
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
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.
Publish, Don’t Perish: Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts of the New Federal Open Access Policy

Alexander B. Belles,Karen E. Beatty,Claire H. Rodman,Charles J. Connolly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg220101

2023-03-06

Journal of Science Policy & Governance

Abstract:In August, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a new policy requiring that all federally funded scholarly research be accessible to the public immediately upon publication. While this open access policy will ultimately benefit society by increasing the availability of data and research outputs, it could place a heavy burden on researchers due to the relatively high cost of open access alongside an academic culture that tends to favor publishing in high impact subscription journals. We examine the complexities of the traditional publishing landscape and offer recommendations for agencies, universities, and publishers to mitigate the impacts on researchers. Specifically, we recommend a short-term increase in funding to cover higher publishing costs, but contributions from all stakeholders are needed to facilitate a long-term solution.
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
Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem

Jeffrey S Flier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2023.a902032

Abstract:The advancement of science requires the publication of research results so other scientists may examine, confirm, and build upon them, and the publishing ecosystem that mediates this process has undergone dramatic change over recent decades. This article takes a broad view of the biomedical research publishing system from its origins in the 17th century to the present day. It begins with a story from the author's lab that illustrates a scientist's complex interactions with the publishing system and then reviews the history, growth, and evolution of scientific publishing, including several recent disruptive developments: the digital transformation, the open access (OA) movement, the creation of "predatory journals," and the emergence of preprint archives. Each has influenced scientific peer review and editorial decision-making, two processes critical to the conduct of medical and scientific research and culture. After briefly discussing concerns about the impact of politics on editorial decision-making, the article closes with thoughts on the future evolution of this publishing ecosystem, which will impact the biomedical research ecosystem that depends upon it. Beyond accelerated speed and improved access to publications, the community should prioritize research aimed at further enhancing the quality and impact of published research, the core goal of the scientific enterprise.
Towards a more sustainable academic publishing system

Mohsen Kayal,Jane Ballard,Ehsan Kayal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24908/iee.2021.14.3.f

2021-01-18

Abstract:Communicating new scientific discoveries is key to human progress. Yet, this endeavor is hindered by monetary restrictions for publishing one's findings and accessing other scientists' reports. This process is further exacerbated by a large portion of publishing media owned by private, for-profit companies that do not reinject academic publishing benefits into the scientific community, in contrast with journals from scientific societies. As the academic world is not exempt from economic crises, new alternatives are necessary to support a fair publishing system for society. After summarizing the general issues of academic publishing today, we present several solutions at the levels of the individual scientist, the scientific community, and the publisher towards more sustainable scientific publishing. By providing a voice to the many scientists who are fundamental protagonists, yet often powerless witnesses, of the academic publishing system, and a roadmap for implementing solutions, this initiative can spark increased awareness and promote shifts towards impactful practices.

General Economics
The chronic growing pains of communicating science online

Dominique Brossard,Dietram A Scheufele,Dietram A. Scheufele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo0668

IF: 56.9

2022-02-11

Science

Abstract:Scientists have not yet adapted to new information environments

multidisciplinary sciences
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
Why is so Harder to Write and Publish Academic Papers?

Mario Arturo Ruiz Estrada

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3903049

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:This paper shows why so hard to write and publish academic papers in academic journals. We collect data from different authors in different areas of research fields. This research tries to explain difficulties that academics experience in the long process from writing until the final publication in any Journal. The end of the paper presents a list of ideas and solutions to initiate successful research. This paper supports that research needs extensive creativity, new ideas, strong knowledge, data and information, different research approaches, writing techniques, find the right journal, and follow the publication performance under the number of downloads and citations. Finally, the same paper presents different cases from top researchers worldwide.
A guide to shortening the time from submission to publication in Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

Jiao Zhang,Xia Huang,Jiming Hao,John C. Crittenden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1231-3

IF: 6.048

2020-01-01

Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

Abstract:Authors want to publish their work as soon as possible. However, the manuscript processing time increases if the manuscript does not meet the journal requirements. Our analysis of manuscripts submitted to Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering from November 2018 to July 2019 shows that the processing time was increased up to 33 days because the manuscripts: (1) had inconsistent formatting of citations, references, and units, (2) exceeded the word limit, (3) were missing information such as the graphical abstract, (4) plagiarized other papers, and (5) had too many tables and figures. Herein, we explain how authors can avoid these issues and decrease the manuscript processing time.
Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Christopher Allen,David M. A. Mehler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

IF: 9.8

2019-05-01

PLoS Biology

Abstract:The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
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
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
A Pragmatic Approach to Getting Published: 35 Tips for Early Career Researchers

Natasha M. Glover,Ioanna Antoniadi,Gavin M. George,Lars Götzenberger,Ruben Gutzat,Kadri Koorem,Pierre Liancourt,Kinga Rutowicz,Krishna Saharan,Wanhui You,Philipp Mayer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00610

IF: 5.6

2016-05-09

Frontiers in Plant Science

Abstract:It is trite to say "publish or perish," yet many early career researchers are often at a loss on how to best get their work published. With strong competition and many manuscripts submitted, it is difficult to convince editors and reviewers to opt for acceptance. A pragmatic approach to publishing may increase one's odds of success. Here, we - a group of postdocs in the field of plant science - present specific recommendations for early career scientists on advanced levels. We cannot provide a recipe-like set of instructions with success guaranteed, but we come from a broad background in plant science, with experience publishing in a number of journals of varying topics and impact factors. We provide tips, tricks, and tools for collaboration, journal selection, and achieving acceptance.

plant sciences
Requiem for Impact Factors and High Publication Charges

Chris R. Triggle,Ross MacDonald,David J. Triggle,Donald Grierson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481

2022-01-01

Abstract:Journal impact factors, publication charges and assessment of quality and accuracy of scientific research are critical for researchers, managers, funders, policy makers, and society. Editors and publishers compete for impact factor rankings, to demonstrate how important their journals are, and researchers strive to publish in perceived top journals, despite high publication and access charges. This raises questions of how top journals are identified, whether assessments of impacts are accurate and whether high publication charges borne by the research community are justified, bearing in mind that they also collectively provide free peer-review to the publishers. Although traditional journals accelerated peer review and publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprint servers made a greater impact with over 30,000 open access articles becoming available and accelerating a trend already seen in other fields of research. We review and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a range of assessment methods and the way in which they are used by researchers, managers, employers and publishers. We argue that new approaches to assessment are required to provide a realistic and comprehensive measure of the value of research and journals and we support open access publishing at a modest, affordable price to benefit research producers and consumers.
Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

Karen Shashok

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.02461

2017-01-10

Abstract:This article offers a personal perspective on the current state of academic publishing, and posits that the scientific community is beset with journals that contribute little valuable knowledge, overload the community's capacity for high-quality peer review, and waste resources. Open access publishing can offer solutions that benefit researchers and other information users, as well as institutions and funders, but commercial journal publishers have influenced open access policies and practices in ways that favor their economic interests over those of other stakeholders in knowledge creation and sharing. One way to free research from constraints on access is the diamond route of open access publishing, in which institutions and funders that produce new knowledge reclaim responsibility for publication via institutional journals or other open platforms. I argue that research journals (especially those published for profit) may no longer be fit for purpose, and hope that readers will consider whether the time has come to put responsibility for publishing back into the hands of researchers and their institutions. The potential advantages and challenges involved in a shift away from for-profit journals in favor of institutional open access publishing are explored.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society
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
The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers

Yan Jiang,Robert Lerrigo,Anika Ullah,Muthu Alagappan,Steven M. Asch,Steven N. Goodman,Sidhartha R. Sinha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223976

IF: 3.7

2019-10-30

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Most research manuscripts are not accepted for publication on first submission. A major part of the resubmission process is reformatting to another journal's specific requirements, a process separate from revising the scientific content. There has been little research to understand the magnitude of the burden imposed by the current resubmission process.We analyzed original research article submission requirements from twelve randomly selected journals in each of eight scientific and clinical focus areas from the InCites Journal Citation Reports database. From the 96 journals selected, we randomly identified three recently published manuscripts and sent surveys to those first and/or corresponding authors (288 total) to solicit information on time spent reformatting resubmissions and opinions on the process.There was significant variation in manuscript submission requirements for journals within the same scientific focus and only 4% of journals offered a fully format-free initial submission. Of 203 authors responding (71.5% response rate), only 11.8% expressed satisfaction with the resubmission process and 91% desired reforming the current system. Time spent on reformatting delays most publications by at least two weeks and by over three months in about 20% of manuscripts. The effort to comply with submission requirements has significant global economic burden, estimated at over $1.1 billion dollars annually when accounting for a research team's time.We demonstrate that there is significant resource utilization associated with resubmitting manuscripts, heretofore not properly quantified. The vast majority of authors are not satisfied with the current process. Addressing these issues by reconciling reformatting requirements among journals or adopting a universal format-free initial submission policy would help resolve a major subject for the scientific research community and provide more efficient dissemination of findings.

multidisciplinary sciences

Does it take too long to publish research?

The pressure to publish pushes down quality

Plea to publish less

The strain on scientific publishing

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

Publish, Don’t Perish: Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts of the New Federal Open Access Policy

Publishing in the Open Access and Open Science era

Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem

Towards a more sustainable academic publishing system

The chronic growing pains of communicating science online

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

Why is so Harder to Write and Publish Academic Papers?

A guide to shortening the time from submission to publication in Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

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

We need better and more PopSci by scientists

A Pragmatic Approach to Getting Published: 35 Tips for Early Career Researchers

Requiem for Impact Factors and High Publication Charges

Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

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

The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers