In academia, 'publish or perish' is not just clever wordplay. These words reflect the enormous pressure academics and researchers are under to produce publications on which their careers depend.
The pressure to 'publish or perish' is strongest in universities. The number of publications turns out to be one of the most powerful instruments used to underscore scholarly or research prowess. Prolific output of research publications often brings renown to scholars and their field of study, which in turn may bring more research funding.
University recruitment committees rely heavily on publication count during recruitment of senior academic and research leaders. Moreover, publications carry an inordinate weight when academics and researches are evaluated for promotion.
Hence, scholars who are great teachers and excellent mentors but who publish infrequently often find themselves at an enormous disadvantage when it comes to academic promotions.
'Publish or perish' has been strongly criticised for two main reasons.
First, the emphasis on publishing diminishes the value or quality of resulting scholarship. There is a ridiculous proliferation of academic publications as evidenced by a pandemic of predatory journals and a plethora of books of marginal quality.
Recent research shows that only 42 per cent of articles published receive more than one citation or mention in a peer-reviewed publication. Hence, most publications are neither appreciated by peers nor deemed relevant by practitioners or even students.
Moreover, the tyranny of 'publish or perish' squanders teaching and mentorship time that professors would otherwise dedicate to undergraduate and graduate students. Typically, the incentives for publishing don’t match the rewards for exceptional teaching.
Second, the pressure to publish has led to unethical and even fraudulent research practices among accomplished and budding academics. Research shows that questionable research conduct is as common as 75 per cent while fraudulent practices occur in up to three per cent of scientists. About 14 per cent of scientists have reported that they have observed or know of colleagues who engage in research fraud. Fraud here means an explicit intention to deceive.
The work of Duke University’s superstar behaviour scientists has come under severe scrutiny after it was revealed that the data that underlies a widely cited publication on dishonesty was massaged. How ironic! Daniel Ariely, who I have had the privilege to meet and chat with, is just one of the most recent high profile and prolific scientists to come under scrutiny. Joachim Boldt is perhaps the best-known academic fraudster. Investigation into his research led to a retraction of 88 of 102 publications.
According to Science Magazine, the number of articles retracted by journals has increased tenfold in the last decade and fraud accounted for 60 per cent of retractions. But retractions don’t always signal scientific malpractice. Nearly 40 per cent of retraction notifications don’t cite fraud or any other kind of research misconduct.
The pressure to 'publish or perish' calls to question the trustworthiness of published research and risks undermining science and public confidence, especially in scientific findings. We must devise parity measures that allow equitable rewards and incentives for publications and student-focused activity.
Views expressed are the writer’s
