• Skip to Content
  • Skip to Sidebar
IU

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington IU Bloomington

Menu

ScIUConversations in Science at Indiana University

  • Home
  • Home
  • About ScIU
  • Write with Us!
  • Contact ScIU
  • The Writers and Editors of ScIU
  • ScIU in the Classroom
  • Annual Science Communication Symposium
  • Search

The perils of publish or perish

Posted on June 15, 2019 by Evan Arnet

Academia is a tough career choice. The pay is low (especially for graduate students), the hours are long, and the job market is uncertain. Those entering the field often receive this simple advice — “publish or perish.” Publications are the central method by which people are evaluated in academia. One either continually publishes papers, ideally before other researchers working on similar topics, or watches as their career tanks. They may miss out on a job, fail to secure resources for their research, or get passed over for tenure. In fact, a host of tools and metrics which let scholars evaluate their publishing success has developed alongside this pressure to publish in prestigious journals. These tools can track the simple number of publications, to the citation count of a paper (how many other papers cite it), to the journal impact factor, even to the convoluted h-index metric.

The arcane details of all these metrics are of little interest to anyone not seeking a career as a scientist or other academic, but what should matter to everyone is how the incentive to publish no matter what can lead to bad science.

First, more publications may not be better. Having lots of publications is the best strategy for a scientist to accrue lots of citations, but the effect on science as an enterprise is less clear. Some evidence indicates that fields flooded with papers can become sluggish and slow to respond to innovative findings. It is also possible that the deluge of publications is gumming up the works, increasing the time it takes to get research out into circulation, although the evidence on this is unclear. From the researcher’s perspective, the additional effort needed to keep up on advancements in one’s field can be detrimental enough on its own. Finally, there are concerns that publication pressure encourages “salami slicing” of work, where scientists split their projects into as many separate publishable parts as possible. This is inefficient, annoying, and potentially misleading (depending on how the separated parts of a project actually relate to each other).

Second, publishing is time-consuming and expensive. There can be a myriad of fees involved in submitting a paper, from simple submission fees, to article processing charges (required to make articles freely availability in otherwise pay-walled journals), to color printing fees for paper journals. Additionally, all these papers have to be read by editors and peer reviewers, who are usually academics volunteering their time, rather than being paid employees. Every minute spent reviewing a paper is time spent away from one’s own research (or family, or hobbies, etc.). And with the need for ever more publications, has come ever more scientific journals to publish in. The cost of paying for access to the burgeoning number of journals is an increasing financial burden for universities, or for the researcher themselves in cases where no institutional support is available. This  financial burden ironically includes buying access to papers published by the researchers the university itself helps to fund — often with public money. Recently, California’s UC system grew so frustrated with the rising costs of paying for the “privilege” to access their own scholarship that they ended their subscription with academic publishing titan Elsevier.

Finally, the publish or perish mindset incentivizes problematic research practices. In the most egregious cases, scientists have engaged in academic fraud, plagiarism, or stealing the work of coworkers and graduate students to ensure a hefty record of publications. Data indicate that there are far more borderline results, that is, results that just barely squeak through disciplinary standards, than would be expected by chance alone and that the pressure to publish may be biasing findings in the direction of publishable results rather than correct ones. Data interpretation can be as much an art as a science, and with enough massaging, investigators can often eke out a “finding” whether it’s really there or not. Not all of this is as malicious as outright fraud or deceitful interpretation; much of the time it is simply scientists looking for something — anything — to make out of their data. Unfortunately, the more scientists look the more likely they are to find patterns in data, even if those patterns just happened by chance. Less extreme, but still concerning, is the selection of “safe” topics to  research (those which ensure publication), or sending rejected papers to different journals without meaningfully responding to peer review, in the hopes that one eventually stumbles on a less attentive reviewer.

Linear diagram of process from beginning to “idea” to “research” to “write” and ending at “publish”. At each step, an arrow points away, indicating “perish”. An arrow shows “publish” leading back to the beginning, labeled as “repeat”.
A realistic diagram of the publishing process, from The art of dissemination part 1: Publish or perish by Alexandra Moussa-Tooks. Open source image.

To resolve these darker implications of the publish or perish mindset will require careful investigation of science as a social and institutional structure. Indiana University is a hub for this type of work. It has a strong tradition in sociology of science — which investigates science as a social system — and houses one of the nation’s only History and Philosophy of Science Departments. The Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research is also heavily involved in the growing field of science of science. The research done at IU in these fields, like the development of programs to share and analyze vast amounts of data on citation patterns, aims to help scientists understand, and improve, the operation of the scientific community.  

However, resolution also requires awareness of the human side of science, and the associated career pressures and other issues (like the increasing “adjunctification” of academics). A focus on scientific achievements, while neglecting to consider the scientists behind them, ultimately hurts both scientists and science. Only through combining this perspective with the data-driven initiatives discussed above, can we begin to tackle this harmful practice.

Edited by Clara Boothby and Taylor Nicholas

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related

Filed under: Cutting-Edge Science at IU, General Science, Scientific Methods and TechniquesTagged publishing, science policy, Statistics

One Comment

  1. Daisy Rosas Vargas June 15th, 2019

    great article!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Additional Content

Search ScIU

Categories

Tag cloud

#Education #scicomm animal behavior anthropology astronomy astrophysics Biology biotechnology Black History Month brain cannabinoids Chemistry climate change conservation coronavirus COVID–19 diversity Diversity in Science diversity in STEM Ecology environment evolution geology history and philosophy of science infectious disease Interdisciplinary Interview Mental Health methods microbiology neuroscience outreach physics Plants primates psychology Research science science communication science education Science Outreach science policy Statistics STEM women in STEM

Subscribe

Receive a weekly email with our new content! We will not share or use your information for any other purposes, and you may opt out at any time.

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Current Contributors

  • Log in
  • SPLAT
  • ScIU Guides

Indiana University

Copyright © 2022 The Trustees of Indiana University | Privacy Notice | Accessibility Help

  • Home
  • About ScIU
  • Write with Us!
  • Contact ScIU
  • The Writers and Editors of ScIU
  • ScIU in the Classroom
  • Annual Science Communication Symposium
College of Arts + Sciences

Are you a graduate student at IUB? Would you like to write for ScIU? Email sciucomm@iu.edu


Subscribe

Subscribe By Email

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

 

Loading Comments...