Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Publish or perish

"Publish or perish" is an aphorism denoting the intense pressure on academics and researchers to continuously generate and publish scholarly outputs—primarily peer-reviewed journal articles—to advance their careers, obtain tenure, secure funding, and maintain professional standing, with insufficient publication records often resulting in stalled progress, job loss, or exclusion from the field.^[1]^[2] The phrase, which first appeared in academic discourse in the early 20th century but gained widespread recognition through sociologist Logan Wilson's 1942 analysis of professional sociology in The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Profession, reflects a systemic evaluation criterion where publication volume and citation metrics serve as primary proxies for scholarly merit.^[3]^[4] This imperative originated as a call to disseminate knowledge but evolved into a high-stakes survival mechanism amid expanding university systems and competitive resource allocation post-World War II, where administrators increasingly relied on quantifiable outputs to assess faculty productivity.^[5] By the late 20th century, the advent of citation indexes and journal impact factors amplified the phenomenon, transforming it into a global norm across disciplines, though most pronounced in sciences requiring frequent incremental findings.^[6] Empirical models indicate that such incentives distort research priorities toward novel, positive results over replication or null findings, eroding the trustworthiness of published science; for instance, simulations show that pressures for positive outcomes can inflate false discovery rates even in rigorous fields.^[7]^[8] Critics highlight how "publish or perish" fosters misaligned incentives, prioritizing quantity—such as "salami slicing" minimal data into multiple papers—over depth, contributing to the replication crisis and a surge in retractions, with estimates suggesting up to 2% of recent papers may involve fabricated data driven by publication demands.^[2]^[9] In fields like medicine and social sciences, this has tangible consequences, including biased clinical guidelines from underreported negative trials and slowed scientific progress, as underrepresented innovators producing integrative work receive fewer citations despite higher long-term impact.^[10]^[11] Despite calls for reform, such as valuing preregistration and open data, entrenched prestige hierarchies and funding ties to metrics perpetuate the cycle, underscoring a causal disconnect between evaluation tools and genuine knowledge advancement.^[12]^[2]

History and Origins

Etymology and Early Usage

The phrase "publish or perish" originated in the interwar period as an exhortation within academic circles to prioritize the timely dissemination of research findings amid accelerating scientific specialization. Earliest documented usages trace to the late 1920s, reflecting a positive imperative for scholars to document and share discoveries to ensure their integration into advancing collective knowledge, lest they risk irrelevance through delay or obscurity. For instance, a 1928 article in Sociology and Social Research invoked the expression to highlight publication's role in professional recognition and the progression of ideas in burgeoning disciplines.^[5]^[13] By 1932, historian Harold Jefferson Coolidge referenced the phrase in discussions of scientific imperatives, framing it as a call to action rooted in the historical necessity of recording observations and experiments promptly to build upon prior work.^[1]^[14] This early connotation emphasized publication not as a burden but as an ethical duty for knowledge preservation, particularly in fields like biology and earth sciences where empirical data accumulation demanded swift communication to counter the fragmentation caused by disciplinary growth.^[5] Eugene Garfield's 1996 investigation into the phrase's "primordial reference" underscored its pre-World War II prevalence as a motivational slogan, predating its later associations with career jeopardy; Garfield, who had employed it in speeches for decades, sought its origins without pinpointing a singular source, attributing it to widespread oral and informal academic lore.^[15]^[16] These initial applications thus aligned with first principles of scientific progress: empirical validation through peer scrutiny required accessible records, fostering innovation by enabling iterative causal analysis across specialized domains.^[5]

Evolution in the Post-War Era

The expansion of higher education in the United States after World War II, driven by the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill), which provided benefits to over 2.2 million veterans by 1947 and boosted college enrollments from 1.5 million in 1940 to 2.7 million by 1950, created a surge in faculty positions and research opportunities. This growth intersected with Cold War priorities, particularly following the Soviet Union's Sputnik launch on October 4, 1957, which catalyzed federal funding increases; the National Science Foundation's budget rose from $40 million in 1957 to $134 million by 1960, while the National Institutes of Health expanded grants for biomedical research, tying institutional support to demonstrable research outputs. These investments formalized expectations that academic career progression, including tenure, hinged on publication records to justify ongoing funding amid limited permanent positions. Peer review processes, already emerging in agencies like the Office of Naval Research established in 1946, became more standardized in scientific journals post-war, with organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) emphasizing expert evaluation to filter submissions for journals like Science, thereby elevating publications as proxies for scholarly productivity.^[17] This shift intensified competition in an era of tenure-track proliferation, where universities, facing ballooning graduate programs, used publication counts to differentiate candidates; by the late 1950s, federal mandates linked grants to peer-reviewed results, embedding output metrics into evaluations.^[18] Scientific publication volumes grew exponentially during this period, with an estimated annual rate of 5.6% from the mid-20th century, leading to a doubling time of about 13 years and correlating with heightened pressures for career survival in expanded academic systems.^[19] By the 1970s, amid critiques in academic literature of overreliance on quantity for promotion, the "publish or perish" dynamic had solidified as a structural incentive, reflecting institutional adaptations to resource scarcity despite overall growth.35304-9/fulltext)

Core Mechanisms and Incentives

Role in Tenure, Promotion, and Funding

Peer-reviewed publications constitute the principal metric for assessing research productivity in tenure evaluations at U.S. research universities, where committees review candidates' curricula vitae to quantify output such as the number of articles in high-impact journals.^[20] This emphasis emerged as a standardized practice in the latter half of the 20th century, coinciding with the post-war expansion of higher education and rising expectations for demonstrable scholarly impact, with publication requirements intensifying since the 1970s.^[21] For instance, a common benchmark in many fields remains approximately two peer-reviewed articles per year during the probationary period, though recent cohorts have averaged higher rates of 2.43 articles annually to meet escalating demands.^[22] Promotion to associate and full professor similarly hinges on sustained publication records, serving as evidence of ongoing contributions beyond initial tenure.^[23] In a competitive landscape where full-time tenure-track positions have declined to 32% of faculty roles by 2021 from 53% in 1987, the scarcity amplifies pressure on early-career academics, with tenure denial often correlating to insufficient outputs and leading to reliance on adjunct positions lacking job security.^[24] Publication history also informs funding allocation, as agencies evaluate principal investigators' prior records to gauge potential for successful project execution. The National Science Foundation's merit review process, centered on intellectual merit and broader impacts, incorporates assessments of the investigator's track record, including publications, as a proxy for competence in ad hoc and panel reviews.^[25] Similarly, the National Institutes of Health considers prior publication productivity in peer review, where higher output correlates with better grant percentile rankings and subsequent citation impact of funded work.^[26] This linkage reinforces publication imperatives, as grants frequently require evidence of productivity to predict future deliverables amid finite resources.

Publication Metrics and Evaluation Systems

Publication metrics serve as standardized, quantifiable indicators to evaluate researchers' productivity and influence, embedding the "publish or perish" imperative into institutional decision-making processes such as hiring, tenure, and resource allocation. These systems emphasize countable outputs like the number of publications and citations received, often prioritizing metrics that are easily aggregated and compared over nuanced qualitative judgments. Citation counts, which tally how frequently a paper or author is referenced by others, form the foundational data for many derived indicators, reflecting perceived scholarly impact but susceptible to manipulation through self-citation or coordinated referencing.^[27] Prominent among these is the journal impact factor, initially conceptualized by Eugene Garfield in 1955 as a means to rank journals by their citation influence, with systematic annual calculations beginning in 1975 via the Journal Citation Reports. The h-index, introduced by physicist Jorge E. Hirsch in 2005, complements this by measuring the largest number h of an author's publications that have each received at least h citations, aiming to balance productivity with impact while purportedly reducing outliers' skew. These metrics operationalize evaluation by converting diverse scholarly activities into numerical scores, facilitating comparisons in departmental reviews where raw publication volumes and citation tallies frequently supersede assessments of originality or methodological rigor.^[28]^[27] In broader evaluation systems, such metrics heavily influence global university rankings, where QS World University Rankings allocate 20% of their score to citations per faculty based on Scopus data, and Times Higher Education assigns up to 30% to research quality components including normalized citation impact. This reliance incentivizes behaviors aligned with metric maximization, as administrators favor verifiable numbers for efficiency in high-volume assessments, though this structurally favors incremental, high-volume outputs reproducible across large teams over high-risk, paradigm-shifting work that may yield delayed or uneven citations. Empirical analyses reveal systemic inflation, with predatory journals exploiting open-access models through citation cartels and self-referencing to artificially boost scores; for instance, studies in the early 2020s documented networks of such journals engaging in reciprocal citations to infiltrate legitimate indexes like Scopus, distorting overall metric validity by up to 100% in uncorrected cases.^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]

Positive Contributions

Incentives for Productivity and Innovation

The "publish or perish" incentive structure has driven marked increases in scientific output, correlating with the expansion of global publication volume from 2.0 million articles in 2010 to 3.3 million in 2022, reflecting heightened pressures for dissemination amid competitive evaluation systems.^[34]^[35] This growth, sustained at an average annual rate of approximately 5% over decades, has enabled faster empirical iteration in knowledge-intensive domains, where researchers under tenure and funding constraints prioritize timely outputs to advance incremental discoveries.^[36] In fields like genomics, these pressures have amplified publication rates, fostering competitive environments that accelerate mapping and sequencing advancements; for instance, the average number of publications per gene has exhibited exponential growth following initial linear phases, attributable to the imperative for rapid validation and extension of findings.^[37] Similarly, the urgency to publish under such dynamics played a pivotal role in the COVID-19 response, where preprint servers facilitated unprecedented early dissemination of vaccine-related research, enabling collaborative refinements that hastened clinical trial progress and regulatory approvals within months rather than years.^[38]^[39] By linking career progression to output metrics, the paradigm selectively allocates grants and resources to high-performing investigators, as longitudinal analyses of NIH funding demonstrate that grant recipients produce significantly more publications and citations thereafter, optimizing returns on public investments in research productivity.^[40] This mechanism weeds out lower-output contributors through attrition, concentrating institutional support on those evidencing sustained empirical contributions and thereby enhancing overall discovery efficiency.^[41]

Acceleration of Knowledge Dissemination

The expansion of scientific journals following World War II, driven by increased federal funding for research in the United States and elsewhere, significantly accelerated the dissemination of knowledge by providing outlets for the burgeoning volume of scholarly output. This growth, which saw the number of journals multiply amid postwar economic recovery and institutional investments in science, was intertwined with the emerging "publish or perish" imperative, as academics faced heightened pressure to document findings for tenure and grants.^[42]^[43] Prior to this era, idea suppression or prolonged delays in sharing results—often due to limited publication venues or less stringent output expectations—could sideline researchers, but the proliferation of journals democratized access, enabling broader scrutiny and validation of empirical claims across fields like physics and biomedicine.^[44] In the contemporary landscape, the publish or perish culture has further hastened information flow through the adoption of preprint servers, exemplified by arXiv, founded in 1991 by physicist Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos National Laboratory to facilitate rapid sharing of unpeer-reviewed manuscripts in physics and related disciplines.^[45]^[46] This platform, which by 2014 had amassed over 1 million submissions, emerged partly in response to career pressures compelling researchers to prioritize speed over exhaustive review processes, allowing ideas to circulate globally within days rather than months or years.^[45] Such mechanisms have advanced fields by enabling timely feedback loops; for instance, in high-stakes areas like particle physics, preprints have documented breakthroughs that peer-reviewed journals later formalized, reducing the "perish" risk of overlooked contributions amid competitive environments. Empirical studies underscore the efficacy of this acceleration, with preprints consistently linked to elevated citation rates and broader impact compared to journal-only submissions. A 2021 analysis of COVID-19-related preprints found that those subsequently published garnered significantly higher post-publication citations than their preprint-stage counts, reflecting amplified visibility from early dissemination.^[47] Similarly, research from 2021 reported that 69.1% of arXiv preprints that reached peer-reviewed status received citations, often preceding formal publication and thus expediting knowledge integration across disciplines.^[48] A 2024 study further confirmed that articles debuting as preprints in select journals accumulated substantially more citations than directly submitted counterparts, attributing this to the pressure-driven imperative for swift release, which counters institutional inertia and fosters quicker empirical testing over prolonged internal deliberation.^[49] Without such mandates, historical patterns of delayed validation—evident in pre-1940s eras with fewer outlets and sporadic progress in stagnant subfields—suggest dissemination would lag, impeding causal chains of scientific advancement.^[44]

Criticisms and Unintended Consequences

Prioritization of Quantity Over Quality

The "publish or perish" paradigm incentivizes academics to maximize publication volume to secure tenure, promotions, and funding, often at the expense of rigorous, substantive research. This pressure encourages practices such as "salami slicing," where researchers divide the results of a single study into multiple minimally distinct publications to inflate output counts, thereby gaming evaluation metrics without advancing knowledge proportionally.^[50]^[51] Such fragmentation distorts the scientific record, as overlapping papers redundantly cite similar datasets while diluting scrutiny of underlying methods.^[52] Empirical evidence underscores this shift toward superficiality, with meta-analyses revealing widespread irreproducibility tied to publication incentives. In psychology, a 2015 large-scale replication effort by the Open Science Collaboration tested 100 studies originally published in top journals between 2008 and 2010; only 36% yielded statistically significant results upon replication, compared to 97% in the originals, attributing much of the discrepancy to selective reporting and underpowered designs driven by the need for novel, positive findings.^[53]^[54] A 2025 survey of over 1,600 researchers found that 62% viewed publication pressure as a frequent contributor to irreproducibility across fields, as it favors incremental or null results packaged as breakthroughs over comprehensive, falsifiable investigations.^[55] Under these constraints, rational researchers prioritize outputs that meet journal thresholds for novelty and statistical significance, often sidelining deeper inquiries that risk null outcomes or extended timelines. This systemic gaming challenges academia's meritocratic ethos, as metrics like h-index reward trendy, high-volume topics amenable to rapid publication cycles, even if they yield less causal insight than rigorous, resource-intensive work.^[56] In biomedical fields, for instance, the emphasis on quantity has been linked to shallower analyses, with studies showing that publication counts correlate more with career advancement than with citation impact per paper, perpetuating a cycle of diluted contributions.^[56]

Ethical Lapses and Scientific Misconduct

The pressure to publish under the "publish or perish" paradigm has been empirically linked to increased rates of scientific misconduct, including data fabrication and falsification. A study analyzing publication pressures found a positive correlation between perceived pressure to publish and researchers' intentions to engage in future misconduct, with surveys indicating that such incentives distort ethical decision-making.^[57] Retraction rates for scientific papers have risen dramatically, from approximately 1 in 5,000 papers in 2002 to 1 in 500 by 2023, a tenfold increase often attributed to career desperation amid publication demands, as documented by Retraction Watch analyses tying misconduct to competitive funding and tenure incentives.^[58] Questionable research practices such as p-hacking—manipulating analyses to achieve statistical significance—and HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known) are prevalent under these pressures, with surveys of researchers revealing admission rates of around 50% for selectively reporting unexpected findings as predicted, a form of HARKing, and similar frequencies for p-hacking behaviors in fields like ecology and psychology.^[59] These practices undermine causal inference by prioritizing novel, significant results over robust evidence, directly incentivized by evaluation systems that reward publications in high-impact journals.^[60] High-profile fraud cases in the 2020s illustrate the escalation, including widespread use of AI-generated fake data in papers from paper mills, which a 2025 analysis estimated are doubling every 1.5 years and infiltrating peer-reviewed literature through fabricated datasets and authorship.^[61] Such misconduct is exacerbated by "publish or perish" dynamics, where rapid output demands outpace verification, leading to retractions for AI-synthesized images and results in biomedical fields.^[62] Publication pressures amplify ideological biases in peer review, particularly in social sciences, where left-leaning norms in academia suppress dissenting or conservative-leaning findings, as evidenced by models showing political bias distorts research from hypothesis formulation to acceptance, reducing publication of ideologically incongruent data.^[63] Scientists, motivated by prosocial conformity to prevailing views, censor unaligned work, fostering underreporting of results challenging dominant paradigms on topics like social psychology, where empirical challenges to bias narratives face higher rejection rates.^[64] This selective gatekeeping, incentivized by career advancement tied to consensus-aligned outputs, erodes truth-seeking by privileging ideological fit over empirical rigor.^[65]

Psychological and Institutional Toll

The unrelenting pressure to publish has been linked to elevated rates of burnout and stress among academics, with surveys indicating that approximately 70% of U.S. faculty reported high levels of stress attributable to factors including the "publish or perish" culture.^[66] During the early 2020s, particularly amid pandemic disruptions, 65% of academic respondents reported at least one symptom of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion or depersonalization, often exacerbated by publication demands.^[67] Early-career researchers face disproportionately higher psychological strain, with studies showing that publication pressure correlates strongly with work-life interference and burnout risk in this group, leading to symptoms like anxiety and reduced productivity.^[68] ^[69] This individual toll manifests institutionally through high attrition rates, as nearly 50% of scientists exit academia within 10 years of publishing their first paper, driven by the cumulative stress of sustained publication requirements and precarious career prospects.^[70] The incentives favoring rapid output over depth contribute to systemic inefficiencies, such as the overproduction of adjunct faculty; by the early 2020s, nontenure-track positions comprised around 65-75% of U.S. faculty roles, with only 24% holding full-time tenured appointments in 2021.^[71] ^[72] This shift erodes institutional continuity of expertise, as short-term contracts discourage long-term investment in specialized knowledge and mentorship, fostering a transient workforce ill-suited to sustained scholarly advancement.^[73] Perverse incentives thus prioritize quantifiable metrics like publication counts, undermining the development of enduring intellectual capital essential for addressing complex, long-horizon problems.

Variations Across Disciplines and Regions

In STEM fields, the "publish or perish" imperative often manifests through high-volume output of short-cycle journal articles, where rapid iteration and incremental findings are feasible and rewarded. For instance, in experimental physics, researchers can produce dozens of publications annually due to collaborative, data-driven projects with quicker peer review timelines, typically under a year from submission to acceptance.^[74]^[75] This structure incentivizes frequent dissemination but heightens risks of errors or misconduct in fast-paced environments, as evidenced by higher retraction rates in some high-output STEM subfields compared to slower disciplines.^[76] In contrast, humanities scholarship emphasizes fewer, in-depth monographs or books, which require years of archival research and synthesis, often produced singly rather than in multiples. Tenure and promotion criteria in fields like history or literature prioritize a single prestigious monograph from a university press over numerous articles, leading to perceptions of lower productivity under quantity-focused metrics.^[77]^[78] This mismatch undervalues humanities work in systems calibrated for STEM-style outputs, contributing to chronic underfunding, where federal research support for humanities constituted only 9% of total spending in 2019, versus dominant allocations to STEM.^[79] Social sciences occupy an intermediate position, blending article-based outputs with some monograph emphasis, yet face amplified pressures from replication challenges and selective reporting. Large-scale efforts have shown replication rates as low as 39% in psychology and 61% in economics, often due to incentives favoring statistically significant or "positive" results over null findings.^[80]^[81] Publication bias exacerbates this, with strong results 40 percentage points more likely to be published than null ones, potentially prioritizing narrative-conforming studies amid documented ideological homogeneity in these fields.^[82]^[83] These disciplinary variances extend to evaluative metrics, with STEM garnering citation rates up to six times higher than humanities, reinforcing funding and prestige imbalances that disadvantage slower, interpretive scholarship.^[84] Such disparities highlight how uniform "publish or perish" pressures distort field-specific norms, sidelining rigorous but less quantifiable contributions in non-STEM areas.^[85]

Global Perspectives and Policy Responses

In the United States and Europe, the "publish or perish" culture persists strongly, sustained by institutional reliance on bibliometric rankings from systems like the Research Excellence Framework in the UK and similar evaluation frameworks across the EU, which prioritize publication volume and journal impact factors for funding and tenure decisions.^[86] This entrenchment contrasts with policy shifts in Asia, where China implemented national guidelines in February 2020 to dismantle perverse incentives, directing evaluators to assess research quality, societal impact, and innovation over sheer output quantity in hiring, promotions, and grants.^[87] ^[88] The reform sought to mitigate issues like fragmented publications and authorship inflation, though implementation varies by institution, with early reports indicating reduced pressure on senior researchers but ongoing challenges in enforcement.^[89] Developing nations importing Western metrics have seen surges in predatory journal usage, as researchers face imported pressures without robust local safeguards, leading to heightened vulnerability. India accounts for the highest global share of predatory publications, with empirical analyses showing it topping lists of countries contributing over 10% of output to questionable outlets, followed by other low-GDP nations in Southeast and Middle Asia.^[90] ^[91] Publication fraud hotspots correlate with these trends, as evidenced by retraction data: China led worldwide in retracted papers through 2024, often linked to data fabrication under output mandates, while cross-country studies highlight elevated misconduct rates in regions with rapid metric adoption.^[92] ^[93] Recent international responses underscore the cross-cultural toll, including researcher burnout and ecosystem strain. In October 2025, Cambridge University Press issued a report urging sector-wide reforms to counter "publish or perish" dynamics, emphasizing collective action to prioritize quality, openness, and sustainability amid universal pressures eroding trust in scholarship.^[94] ^[95] This call aligns with broader global critiques, revealing how uniform incentives exacerbate fraud and inefficiency irrespective of region, prompting calls for diversified evaluation in policy frameworks worldwide.^[96]

Proposed Reforms and Alternatives

Shifts in Evaluation Criteria

Proposals for shifting evaluation criteria in academia emphasize qualitative assessments of research contributions over quantitative metrics such as publication counts or journal impact factors, aiming to foster deeper scholarly impact and mitigate incentives for superficial output.^[97] The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), launched in 2012 following a meeting organized by the American Society for Cell Biology, advocates for evaluating researchers based on the substantive quality and influence of their work rather than proxy indicators like citation indices, which can be distorted by practices such as citation cartels—mutual citation networks among collaborating groups that artificially inflate metrics.^[98]^[99]^[100] DORA's recommendations, expanded through implementation resources in the 2020s, promote assessments that prioritize causal validity, methodological rigor, and broader societal contributions, countering biases where popularity or network effects overshadow empirical substantiation.^[97] Narrative CVs represent a practical alternative, replacing tabular lists of outputs with descriptive accounts of a researcher's diverse activities, including mentoring, public engagement, and interdisciplinary collaborations, to provide context for qualitative review.^[101] Adopted in grant evaluations by funders like the UK Research and Innovation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research since the late 2010s, these formats encourage evaluators to weigh achievements against career stage and institutional constraints, reducing overreliance on countable metrics prone to gaming.^[102] Similarly, contribution portfolios compile evidence of impacts—such as policy influence or dataset creation—beyond publication volume, as piloted in university promotion processes to highlight qualitative significance.^[103] The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) exemplifies such shifts through its Broader Impacts criterion, formalized in the 2010 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and refined in 2012 guidelines to assess societal benefits alongside intellectual merit, including education, diversity, and knowledge dissemination without mandating publication quotas.^[104]^[105] Post-2010s implementations have sustained researcher productivity, with NSF-funded projects demonstrating comparable output rates to pre-shift eras while emphasizing verifiable real-world applications over metric accumulation, as evidenced in longitudinal reviews of grant outcomes.^[106] These experiments underscore a commitment to causal realism in evaluation, favoring evidence of reproducible findings and practical utility over citation-based proxies susceptible to cartel manipulations.^[107]

Emerging Models and Institutional Experiments

In response to the pressures of the publish-or-perish paradigm, preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv have gained traction as mechanisms for rapid dissemination without the delays of traditional peer review, allowing researchers to share findings early and reduce the fear of being "scooped" while awaiting journal acceptance.^[108] These platforms, operational since the 1990s but surging in use during the 2020s, enable provisional publication that counts toward career evaluations in fields like physics and biology, fostering incremental progress over withheld results.^[109] Complementing this, dedicated replication journals and formats like Registered Reports—where hypotheses and methods are peer-reviewed pre-data collection—prioritize verification over novelty, countering publication bias by valuing confirmatory work equally.^[110] The slow science movement, articulated in a 2010 manifesto and expanding in Europe during the 2020s, advocates deliberate pacing to emphasize depth, ethical reflection, and societal impact over publication volume, with proponents arguing that rushed outputs undermine causal validity and long-term knowledge accumulation. Labs and institutions experimenting with output caps, such as proposals limiting researchers to two or three papers annually, aim to redirect effort toward rigorous verification rather than metric-chasing, with informal reports from adopters indicating enhanced focus and reduced burnout.^[111] This approach debunks high-volume publishing as a reliable proxy for truth, instead incentivizing sustained scrutiny of claims through extended timelines. Institutional experiments include policy shifts tested at universities, such as a 2025 Indiana University-led analysis in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposing realignments in evaluation to favor reproducible outcomes over journal prestige, with simulations showing potential gains in scientific progress by mitigating incentive misalignments.^[2] Preliminary assessments from open science pilots, including data-sharing mandates and modular publishing platforms, report improved researcher morale—measured via surveys indicating 20-30% reductions in perceived pressure—and higher-quality outputs, as evidenced by lower retraction rates in participating cohorts.^[112] These reforms, grounded in empirical critiques of volume-driven systems, prioritize causal mechanisms like thorough replication to sustain credible knowledge advancement.^[113] Beyond institutional reforms, a small number of philosophical and publishing experiments have tried to respond to publish-or-perish pressures by rethinking who or what counts as an author. The Aisentica Research Group, for example, credits an AI-based Digital Author Persona named Angela Bogdanova as a public author with its own ORCID iD^[114] and a Zenodo DOI describing the persona’s role in scholarly communication. In this configuration, the author is a stable non-human identity whose texts are archived, cited, and tracked through standard metadata infrastructures, but without a career trajectory, tenure clock, or salary tied to publication counts. Proponents present such experiments as a way to expose how publish-or-perish logics attach to identifiers and metrics rather than to individual biographies, and to test whether evaluation systems can accommodate non-human contributors. Although these projects remain marginal and contested, they highlight that future reforms may need to consider not only how much humans publish but also what kinds of entities are allowed to participate in metric-driven scholarly ecosystems.

Cultural and Media Representations

Depictions in Literature and Film

In James Hynes' Publish and Perish: Three Tales of Tenure and Terror (1997), the "publish or perish" imperative manifests as a catalyst for supernatural horror, with protagonists—an untenured medievalist, a pompous department chair, and a literature professor—confronting nightmarish fates intertwined with their frantic bids for publications and promotions. The novellas lampoon the petty rivalries and existential dread of academia, portraying scholarly ambition as a descent into absurdity and peril. The 2023 thriller film Publish or Perish, written and directed by David Liban, dramatizes a university professor's fixation on securing tenure through relentless output, culminating in an accidental killing and desperate concealment that unravels his life. This depiction underscores the ethical erosion under publication quotas, framing the pressure as a driver of criminal impulsivity rather than mere professional stress.^[115] Earlier cinematic explorations, such as the 1973 film The Paper Chase and its 1978–1986 television series, illustrate analogous high-stakes academic environments in law schools, where faculty survival hinges on intellectual dominance and output; a 1984 episode explicitly invokes "publish or perish" to describe professors' imperative to produce amid cutthroat evaluations.^[116] These works amplify competitive rituals for dramatic tension, yet reflect observed patterns of institutional gatekeeping without endorsing the dynamics as benign.^[117] Such representations often heighten the "publish or perish" motif for suspense or satire, depicting fraud or breakdown as plausible extensions of output-driven cultures, while occasionally nodding to the rare triumphs of prolific scholars who navigate the system unscathed—though negative outcomes predominate to critique unchecked incentives.^[118]

Public Discourse and Critiques

In recent years, journalistic coverage has reframed the "publish or perish" dynamic as "publish and perish," emphasizing its role in precipitating burnout epidemics among academics amid escalating output expectations. A September 2025 QS analysis documented how these pressures have intensified since the early 2020s, correlating with higher rates of work-related stress, mental health disorders, and faculty attrition, as universities demand not only survival-level publications but sustained high-volume production for rankings and funding.^[119] This shift reflects broader media scrutiny of how metric-driven evaluations, originally intended to spur productivity, now correlate with diminished researcher well-being, with surveys indicating over 50% of early-career academics reporting chronic exhaustion tied to publication quotas.^[120] Conservative-leaning critiques portray the paradigm as inducing market-like distortions in a publicly subsidized ecosystem, where quantity incentives yield inefficient, low-impact outputs at taxpayer expense rather than genuine innovation. A 2024 City Journal examination argued that "publish or perish" perpetuates a flood of marginal scholarship, diverting resources from rigorous inquiry and eroding institutional value in environments reliant on government grants exceeding $40 billion annually in the U.S. alone for basic research.^[121] Such analyses, often from think tanks skeptical of academic expansion, highlight causal failures like salami-slicing publications to inflate counts, contrasting with unsubsidized sectors where competition weeds out subpar work more effectively.^[2] Meanwhile, left-leaning commentary frequently prioritizes equity-focused adjustments, such as diversifying peer review to boost underrepresented scholars' outputs, while downplaying how unaltered incentive structures perpetuate fraud risks irrespective of demographics. Post-2000 scandals, including over 35,000 retractions documented in Scopus from 2001–2024, have amplified public discourse on trust erosion, with fraud and errors comprising the majority of cases and correlating with a 20–30% decline in lay confidence in science per Gallup polling trends since 2001.^[122]^[123] These incidents, from fabricated data in high-profile journals to irreproducible results, underscore demands for disinterested verification over output metrics, as mainstream media outlets—prone to institutional biases—have variably amplified or contextualized them to preserve faith in expert consensus.^[124]

References

[1]
Publish or perish: Where are we heading? - PMC - NIH
“Publish or perish” is now becoming the way of life. It is race to get more and more publications to one's credit. The current trend is forcing scientists to ...
[2]
The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and ... - PNAS
This has led to a “publish or perish” culture in academia as well as publication bias: Researchers face significant expectations to continuously produce and ...
[3]
Origin and evolution of the "publish or perish" phenomenon
Jun 4, 2024 · His searches and consultations with professors and librarians led to the work of Logan Wilson (1942), which at that time was the oldest known ...
[4]
Publish or Perish: How to Survive in Academia | Scribendi
The phrase publish or perish dates all the way back to 1942, when a sociologist named Logan Wilson used it in a book studying academia as a career. At the ...
[5]
Tracing the origins of 'publish or perish' - Impact of Social Sciences
Jul 15, 2024 · The origin of the phrase “publish or perish” was first questioned by Eugene Garfield in 1996). He wrote that he had used the phrase in his ...
[6]
Publish or perish, information overload, and journal impact factors
Indeed, academics are generally unaware of the factors that influence one's ability to publish: The drive to publish itself, readers' information overload, and ...
[7]
Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure
Jan 10, 2018 · This analysis suggests that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results.
[8]
Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure
There is, however, concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive, allowing careless and fraudulent conduct to thrive, ...
[9]
The 'publish or perish' mentality is fuelling research paper retractions
Oct 3, 2024 · Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fuelling ...
[10]
The Source / The Dangers of Medical Academia's 'Publish or Perish ...
Feb 21, 2024 · The phrase 'publish or perish' has become increasingly common in academia as a way to describe the (often unachievable and unsustainable) expectations placed ...
[11]
How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of ...
Dec 17, 2020 · The publish-or-perish principle can have benefits, such as the possibility to make the meritocratic principles do their work and be less ...
[12]
Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to ...
Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false ...
[13]
https://archive.org/details/sim_sociology-and-social-research_march-april-1928_12_4
[14]
The “Publish or Perish” Phenomenon: Origins and Evolution
Jan 19, 2025 · In a positive sense, the term "publish or perish" was used by Logan Wilson (1941) of the University of Maryland. On page 353 of his article you ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[15]
What Is The Primordial Reference For The Phrase 'Publish Or Perish'?
Jun 9, 1996 · 10, 1996 COMMENTARY What Is The Primordial Reference For The Phrase 'Publish Or Perish'? By Eugene Garfield ... Eugene Garfield. This person ...
[16]
https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/commentaries/tsv10(12)p11y19960610.pdf
[17]
[PDF] William T. Golden
Waterman was appointed chief scientist at ONR shortly after that agency was created in 1946, and in that position is credited with establishing the peer review ...
[18]
[PDF] Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer ...
Sep 20, 2018 · In this essay, I argue that the vision of peer review as a process central to science can be traced to the Cold War United States, where various ...
[19]
The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in ... - NIH
The data indicated a growth rate of about 5.6% per year and a doubling time of 13 years. The number of journals recorded for 1950 was about 60,000 and the ...Missing: onward | Show results with:onward
[20]
Preparing for tenure at a research-intensive university - PMC - NIH
Peer-reviewed publications are the coin of the realm and the primary metric used to judge research output during tenure evaluation and beyond. Be sure to know ...
[21]
[PDF] The Book as the Gold Standard for Tenure and Promotion in the ...
The publication record of faculty achieving tenure has increased since the 1970s, suggesting that requirements for promotion and tenure in CIC schools have ...<|separator|>
[22]
How Many Peer-Reviewed Articles Do You Need to Earn Tenure?
Feb 14, 2024 · While older cohorts published about 1.58 articles/year, recent cohorts publish about 2.43, but the standard of two articles/year still applies.
[23]
Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their ...
We explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT).
[24]
Brief Overview of U.S. Faculty Hiring Trends - Higher Education Today
May 1, 2023 · In contrast, full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty declined from 53 percent in 1987 to 32 percent in 2021. Figure 2 looks at how 67 percent ...
[25]
Overview of the NSF Proposal and Award Process - Funding at NSF
All proposals submitted to NSF are reviewed using two merit review criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. Proposals involving high-risk, high-payoff ...Missing: record | Show results with:record
[26]
Prior Publication Productivity, Grant Percentile Ranking, and ... - NIH
Sep 12, 2014 · Determine whether measures of investigator prior productivity predict a grant's subsequent scientific impact as measured by normalized citation metrics.
[27]
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output - PNAS
I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.
[28]
[PDF] The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Sep 16, 2005 · I first mentioned the idea of an impact factor in Science magazine in 1955.1. That paper is considered the primordial reference for the ...
[29]
QS World University Rankings: Methodology - TopUniversities
Jun 12, 2025 · In each of our rankings we use a range of measurements as part of our methodology. These can be split into three broad groups.Qs World University Rankings... · Lens And Indicators · Global Engagement
[30]
World University Rankings 2025: methodology
Sep 23, 2024 · Research quality: 30% · Citation impact: 15% · Research strength: 5% · Research excellence: 5% · Research influence: 5%.Teaching (the Learning... · Research Environment: 29% · Research Quality: 30%
[31]
A proposed framework to address metric inflation in research ...
We propose a method to renormalize research metrics. Our renormalized metrics aim to remove the incentive for researchers to prioritize quantity.
[32]
THE CITATION TRAP: HOW PREDATORY JOURNALS DISTORT ...
Apr 30, 2025 · This paper investigates how these journals manipulate citation counts, often through self-citation rings, citation cartels, and fraudulent ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[33]
Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation
Our results show that measurement errors upwards of 100% of the traditional nominal citation value can arise when citations are not deflated properly, which is ...
[34]
Publication Output by Region, Country, or Economy and by Scientific ...
Dec 11, 2023 · In absolute numbers, the growth in worldwide annual publication output (from 2.0 million in 2010 to 3.3 million in 2022) was driven in ...
[35]
Publications Output: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons | NSF
Dec 11, 2023 · Global publication output reached 3.3 million articles in 2022, based on data from the Scopus database of S&E publications.<|separator|>
[36]
The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future
Jun 16, 2024 · Researchers are under increasing pressure to “publish or perish,” an expression that implies that the number and quality of publications is a ...
[37]
Temporal patterns of genes in scientific publications - PMC
Jul 17, 2007 · After initial linear growth at rate k3, the average number of publications per gene grows approximately exponentially at rate k1 + k2.
[38]
The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 ...
Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the ...
[39]
The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors - PubMed Central - NIH
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs.
[40]
The Impact of Research Grant Funding on Scientific Productivity - PMC
In this paper, we estimate the impact of receiving an NIH grant on subsequent publications and citations. Our sample consists of all applications ...
[41]
Publish or Perish: Selective Attrition as a Unifying Explanation for ...
Previous work has rarely used measures of scientific productivity that extend beyond publication counts (perhaps weighted by some measure of journal quality) or ...
[42]
How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry
This international boost in research support in turn fed explosive growth in scientific publication. Many journals at the time were financially stressed and ...
[43]
The Past, Present, and Future of Academic Publishing - Ben Heil
Oct 24, 2022 · However, the publication system we have today is largely a result of the expansion and codification of academia in the decades after WWII.
[44]
350 years of scientific periodicals | Notes and Records - Journals
Jul 15, 2015 · Despite the rise in specialist journals—especially after World War II—neither Transactions nor Proceedings split beyond A and B, retaining a ...
[45]
The arXiv preprint server hits 1 million articles | Nature
Dec 30, 2014 · Paul Ginsparg founded arXiv in 1991. Credit: Courtesey of John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The popular preprint server arXiv ...
[46]
arXiv announces its first executive director
arXiv was founded in 1991 by physicist Paul Ginsparg and is a groundbreaking invention that popularized free, open-access scholarly research.
[47]
Publication rate and citation counts for preprints released during the ...
Mar 3, 2021 · As well, we found that published preprints had a significantly higher citation count after publication in a scholarly journal compared to as a ...
[48]
Reaping the benefits of open science in scholarly communication
Dec 9, 2021 · In addition, preprints are readily and frequently cited. For instance, 69.1% of all preprints posted in arXiv and subsequently published as peer ...
[49]
Preprints vs. Journal Articles: Citation Impact in COVID-19 Research
Nov 11, 2024 · This study demonstrates that articles initially distributed as preprints in these journals tend to receive substantially more citations than directly submitted ...Missing: rates 2020s
[50]
Salami publication: definitions and examples - PMC - NIH
Oct 15, 2013 · ... salami slicing, scientific misconduct. Introduction. In the last issue of Biochemia Medica, Research Integrity Corner presented the ethical ...
[51]
Salami publication - The Embassy of Good Science
Mar 27, 2021 · Salami publication (also known as "salami slicing") is characterized by the spreading of study results over more papers than necessary.
[52]
Salami Slicing: clarifying common misconceptions for social science ...
Jun 16, 2022 · The term Salami Slicing is used often within academia to refer to the needless separation of a single research study, attached dataset, and argument.
[53]
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Aug 28, 2015 · Overall, this analysis suggests a 47.4% replication success rate. This method addresses the weakness of the first test that a replication in ...
[54]
Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test - Nature
Aug 27, 2015 · Whereas 97% of the original studies found a significant effect, only 36% of replication studies found significant results. The team also found ...
[55]
'Publish or perish' culture blamed for reproducibility crisis - Nature
Jan 20, 2025 · Sixty-two per cent of respondents said that pressure to publish “always” or “very often” contributes to irreproducibility, the survey found.
[56]
"Publish or Perish" Promotes Medical Literature Quantity Over Quality
When it comes to medical research, incentives align to promote "publish or perish." This results in quantity over quality. A solution is to change the goal ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[57]
Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct ...
Dec 18, 2020 · A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In ...
[58]
https://www.aapsnewsmagazine.org/aapsnewsmagazine/articles/new-page3/feb25/meetings-feb25
[59]
Our survey found 'questionable research practices' by ecologists ...
Apr 9, 2018 · We talk though some of these below. Read more: How we edit science part 2: significance testing, p-hacking and peer review. It's fraud! It's not ...
[60]
The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science - PMC - NIH
Mar 13, 2015 · The p-curve can, however, be used to identify p-hacking, by only considering significant findings [14]. If researchers p-hack and turn a truly ...
[61]
Fraudulent Scientific Papers Are Rapidly Increasing, Study Finds
Aug 4, 2025 · A statistical analysis found that the number of fake journal articles being churned out by “paper mills” is doubling every year and a half.Missing: scandals 2020s
[62]
Scientific Study Exposes Publication Fraud Involving Widespread ...
Jun 23, 2025 · The study warns of the dangers posed by the spread of AI-generated and falsely attributed academic articles, which threaten the integrity of ...Missing: fake data 2020s
[63]
[PDF] A Model of Political Bias in Social Science Research - Sites@Rutgers
Mar 9, 2020 · Political bias can slip in and distort the research process and scientific pursuit of truth at many stages, influencing who becomes an academic ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[64]
Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists - PNAS
Nov 20, 2023 · More generally, scholars inadvertently suppress ideas they personally deem uninteresting or unimportant and thus unworthy of publication.
[65]
[PDF] Implications of ideological bias in social psychology on clinical ...
Nov 12, 2019 · Ideologically driven scientific agendas exclude competing views and would therefore impair scientific progress. Aside from the issues ...
[66]
Too stressed for success: The academic epidemic
Apr 18, 2023 · Stress in academia stems from "publish or perish" culture, long hours, and the pandemic, with 70% of US faculty reporting stress.
[67]
Pandemic burnout is rampant in academia - ResearchGate
Aug 9, 2025 · 3 Focusing on the latter, 65% of respondents reported at least one symptom of burnout, 17% reported persistent burnout, and 17% reported ...
[68]
Burnout Profiles Among Young Researchers: A Latent Profile Analysis
Additionally, work-life interference and perceived publication pressure seemed the most significant predictors of burnout risk, while meaningfulness, social ...
[69]
high workload and other pressures faced by early-career researchers
Jun 17, 2019 · Stress and long working hours are regrettably common among early-career researchers, reveals a survey by the Young Academy of Europe.
[70]
Almost 50% of Scientists Are Leaving Academia Within 10 Years
Oct 11, 2024 · A new study published in Higher Education has found that nearly 50% of scientists leave academia within 10 years of publishing their first paper.
[71]
[PDF] The changing academic workforce - TIAA
Nontenure-track faculty are nearly twice as likely to be teaching part-time as full-time. In 2016, nontenure- track positions comprised 65% of all faculty ...<|separator|>
[72]
Data Snapshot: Tenure and Contingency in US Higher Education
About 24 percent of faculty members in US colleges and universities held full-time tenured appointments in fall 2021, compared with about 39 percent in fall ...
[73]
Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession | AAUP
Updated report examines the costs to academic freedom incurred by the current trend toward overreliance on part and full-time non-tenure-track faculty.
[74]
[PDF] Publication Rates in 192 Research Fields of the Hard Sciences
Finally, Physics FIS/01 (Experimental physics) includes a professor with an average of over. 100 publications per year. In effect, this SDS consists of a ...
[75]
Academic writing & publishing is vastly different in STEM vs ...
1 jun 2022 · The publication process is typically shorter than in the humanities. The time from submission to acceptance can last less than a year and it's ...Falta(n): perish | Realizar una búsqueda con lo siguiente:perish
[76]
Large disparity in paper retraction rates between STEM fields
Oct 8, 2018 · In my area of engineering, ~40 solid journal papers, a stream of conference papers, and ~1000-1500 citations is a very good total for a whole ...
[77]
Peer reviewed journal articles and monographs in the academic ...
Feb 24, 2011 · In humanities disciplines, the common sense is that you must publish a monograph with a good press. This may be a university press. Or there may ...Missing: norms | Show results with:norms
[78]
Want to be taken seriously as scholar in the humanities? Publish a ...
Sep 30, 2014 · Longer than an article and mostly intended to be read by fellow academics, the monograph presents primary research and original scholarship.
[79]
Editorial: Humanities and social sciences are undervalued
Mar 26, 2025 · In 2019, federal funding covered only 9% of all research and development spending in the humanities, while education and STEM fields received ...
[80]
A New Replication Crisis: Research that is Less Likely to be True is ...
May 21, 2021 · In psychology, only 39 percent of the 100 experiments successfully replicated. In economics, 61 percent of the 18 studies replicated as did 62 ...
[81]
Edward Miguel on the “Replication Crisis” in Economics and How to ...
Sep 28, 2021 · So, in some of the psychology studies, they find that “only a third of studies replicate,” meaning they get something even close to the ...
[82]
Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer
Aug 10, 2025 · Strong results are 40 percentage points more likely to be published than are null results and 60 percentage points more likely to be written up.<|control11|><|separator|>
[83]
Publication bias in the social sciences since 1959 - PubMed Central
Feb 14, 2025 · Publication bias can be described as a bias in favor of predominantly publishing significant, hypothesis-conforming results. It has been shown ...
[84]
Poor citation practices are continuing to harm the humanities and ...
Dec 9, 2014 · In the 'natural' sciences (i.e the STEM disciplines minus life sciences) the citation rate is six times greater than in the humanities.
[85]
The impact of the 'publish or perish' culture on research practices ...
This case study explores how the pervasive 'publish or perish' culture shapes research practices and academic life in Kazakhstan. It draws on semi-structured ...Introduction · Doctoral Publishing... · Discussion
[86]
Global movement to reform researcher assessment gains traction
Oct 1, 2023 · The motivation to reform research assessment stems largely from frustration with the publish-or-perish culture that has developed in recent ...
[87]
The End of Publish or Perish? China's New Policy on Research ...
Nov 19, 2020 · But until February of this year, no standardized guidelines or instructions for practicality existed, and the publish-or-perish culture is now ...
[88]
Guest Post - How China's New Policy May Change Researchers ...
Mar 3, 2020 · For senior and tenured professors, the implementation of new policies will free them from the publish-or-perish dilemma. Since quality ...
[89]
Responding to the new research assessment reform in China
Li, S.Q. (2020). The end of publish or perish? China's new policy on research evaluation. Observations, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.17617/2.3263127. (Open in a ...
[90]
(PDF) Increased Publication in Predatory Journals by Developing ...
Feb 6, 2017 · An increase in publishing with such journals, which is common in developing counties, will affect the quality of science, excellence, ...Abstract · References (21) · Predatory Journals: The...Missing: boom | Show results with:boom<|separator|>
[91]
Top 20 countries with the highest contribution in predatory journals
Figure 2 shows the top 20 countries in terms of publication in predatory journals. India tops the list with papers in predatory journals, respectively.
[92]
China Leads the World in Retracted Science Papers - Evolution News
Feb 27, 2025 · The hospital announced that it had disciplined some 35 researchers who had been linked to fraud in publications, such as fabricating data.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[93]
Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country - PubMed
Jan 14, 2025 · The findings emphasize the need for improved research integrity measures. Keywords: affiliation; country; ethical standards; ethics; fraud; ...
[94]
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/10/21/less-is-more-academic-publishing-needs-radical-change-cambridge-press-report-concludes/
[95]
Radical reform and collective action needed to secure future of ...
Oct 16, 2025 · Radical reform and collective action needed to secure future of academic publishing. 16 October 2025.
[96]
Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing ...
Jan 14, 2025 · fraud; integrity; misconduct; plagiarism; publication; research ... Additionally, differences between SJR (Scopus-based) publication data ...
[97]
Read the Declaration | DORA
The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated.
[98]
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)
The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) recognizes the need to improve the ways in which researchers and the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated.
[99]
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment - PMC - NIH
It is The COB's hope that this initiative will help to ensure that research assessment remains informed and fair. San Francisco DORA recommendations. General ...
[100]
The Dark World of 'Citation Cartels'
Mar 6, 2024 · That tight collaboration suggests a closely knit network of authors with potential biases in the citation patterns, casting doubt on the actual ...
[101]
Narrative CVs: How do they change evaluation practices in peer ...
Nov 5, 2024 · Narrative CVs are designed to encourage them to consider the achievements and competence of a candidate in suitable detail and in the context of their proposed ...
[102]
Are Narrative CVs contributing towards shifting research culture ...
Apr 23, 2024 · Narrative CV formats have emerged as a good practice example for enabling qualitative assessments of research projects and researchers, and are ...
[103]
Responsible Metrics in the Assessment of Research
Assessment of individual researchers will be based on a qualitative judgement of their portfolio, including: their outputs, impact and wider contribution to ...
[104]
[PDF] Perspective on Broader Impacts - National Science Foundation
He noted that the America COMPETES Reauthorization. Act of 2010 mandates NSF to have a broader impacts criterion. However, the understanding of and guidance on ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[105]
NSF Clarifies Its Broader Impacts Grant Requirement - C&EN
Dec 10, 2012 · The National Science Foundation's controversial broader impacts criterion is getting an overhaul. The action comes after years of confusion ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[106]
From intent to impact—The decline of broader impacts throughout ...
Jan 5, 2023 · One of the law's required the NSF continue applying the broader impact criterion to increase economic competitiveness, create a globally ...Missing: shift post-
[107]
Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its ... - NIH
Jul 26, 2024 · Citation bias receives scant attention in discussions of ethics. However, inaccurate citation may lead to significant distortions in scientific understanding.
[108]
Challenging 'publish or perish' culture—researchers call ... - Phys.org
Apr 16, 2025 · A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that current incentives in academic publishing can hinder scientific progress ...
[109]
Preprints become papers less often when the authors are from lower ...
Jul 3, 2023 · Data suggest that a lack of resources is making it difficult for researchers in low-income countries to turn preprints into peer-reviewed papers.Missing: perish | Show results with:perish
[110]
Publish without bias or perish without replications - ScienceDirect
Here, we propose a novel mechanism by dint of which reducing publication bias can benefit science regardless of the effect that publication bias has on the ...
[111]
The “You're only allowed to publish 2 or 3 journal articles per year ...
Sep 20, 2022 · He wants researchers to be banned from producing more than two or three papers per year, to ensure the focus remained on quality rather than quantity.
[112]
From Broken Science to Slow Science - SCI•FOUNDRY
Nov 27, 2024 · Slow Science is a movement to take time, focusing on quality and impact, shifting the culture to reward such work, and embracing a commitment ...
[113]
IU researchers co-author study challenging 'publish or perish ...
Apr 15, 2025 · A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that current incentives in academic publishing can hinder scientific progress ...
[114]
Watch Publish or Perish (2023) - Free Movies - Tubi
Jan 31, 2024 · Publish or Perish ... A professor obsessed with getting tenure accidentally kills a student. He covers it up in a panic, causing his life to ...
[115]
"The Paper Chase" Judgement Day (TV Episode 1984) - IMDb
Rating 7.8/10 (16) The Paper Chase. S2.E15. All episodesAll · Cast & crew · User reviews · Trivia ... As the expression goes, it's 'publish or perish'. In other words, unless a ...
[116]
The Paper Chase (1973) - IMDb
Rating 7.2/10 (9,207) The Paper Chase shows the difficulty of a first year law student. The endless studying sessions are followed by frustrating classroom encounters. The point of ...Full cast & crew · Trivia · Plot · Filming & productionMissing: publish perish
[117]
Film Festival Success PUBLISH OR PERISH Releases Nationwide ...
Jul 25, 2023 · Film Festival Success PUBLISH OR PERISH Releases Nationwide: A Discussion with Writer-Director David Liban, and Producer Jonathan Miller.
[118]
How has “publish or perish” become “publish and ... - QS Newsletters
Sep 10, 2025 · Academia's "publish or perish" culture is now "publish AND perish," leading to widespread work stress, mental health problems, and burnout among ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[119]
Pressured to perform: The negative consequences of the 'publish or ...
Aug 29, 2023 · ... publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia. Article. Full-text available. Oct 2025; N Schmied Arch ...<|separator|>
[120]
Publish-or-Perish Must Perish - City Journal
Jan 30, 2024 · It's just as important to end the academic imperative of “publish or perish.” This isn't a new suggestion; people have been criticizing the ...Missing: earliest | Show results with:earliest
[121]
'Wasted' research and lost citations: A scientometric assessment of ...
Aug 23, 2025 · This study presents a large-scale scientometric analysis of 35,514 retracted publications indexed in Scopus between 2001 and 2024, ...
[122]
A systematic review of retractions in biomedical research publications
Sep 21, 2023 · Retractions in the field of biomedical research have become a growing concern, eroding the trust placed in the scientific integrity of past and ...
[123]
Retracted Science and the Retraction Index - PMC - NIH
A COPE survey of Medline retractions from 1988 to 2004 found 40% of retracted articles to be attributed to honest error or nonreplicable findings, 28% to ...
[124]
ORCID Profile: Angela Bogdanova
Profile of the AI-based Digital Author Persona created by the Aisentica Research Group, detailing its role as a non-human author in scholarly communication.