Navigating the "Publish or Perish" Paradox as an Early Career Researcher

The primary goal of research publications used to be disseminating findings so that others could interrogate and build upon them. The research process was more important than the research paper. But you probably agree that things have taken an ugly turn; the research paper is now the most important thing in the research journey, which comes with a steep price.

Did you know? The pressure to publish more papers per year, more papers as lead author, and more papers in high-impact factor journals is linked to a 'growing mental health crisis in the research community.' This pervasive 'publish or perish' culture has contributed to the loss of brilliant minds who dropped out of research and a surge in unethical research practices.

So, what should you do, if you want a career in academia?

Sorry, You Have Too Few Publications!

Shortly after my PhD, I applied for a fellowship at a research institution in Norway. While applying for the fellowship, I noticed the institution was a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Responsible Assessment.

My mind was put at ease. I had only four research papers then: one in a predatory journal, two in Environmental Pollution and one Journal of Chromatography A.

"At least my number of research papers and where I published was not going to be a factor when they assess my application," I thought. After all, institutional signatories of San Francisco DORA promise to:

1. Clearly state hiring criteria, emphasizing to new researchers that a paper's content matters more than where it's published or its metrics.
2. When assessing research, value all outputs like datasets and software, not just publications.

A few weeks after the application date passed, I got a rejection letter stating I had too few publications. They shortlisted people who had at least 10 publications. And the position was advertised as targeting people who had just completed their PhD. I guess the San Francisco DORA guidelines didn't matter.

Conversations with other early career researchers revealed that my experience was probably the norm. Signing the San Francisco DORA or pledging to celebrate and reward quality over quantity seems to be a performative gesture, nothing more.

Why is the Publish or Perish Culture not Perishing?

I want the publish-or-perish culture to perish and I will write its eulogy. But an honest look at current trends in higher education, I am convinced it is here for a little longer. Why is that? Blame World University Rankings!

World University Rankings of all shades reward institutions that publish more research papers annually.

Some rankings rank universities in terms of the number of research papers they publish on different Sustainability Development Goals. Being highly ranked helps universities attract more international students, which means more money. It's all about the Benjamins!

Universities have to come up with strategies to publish more. Some Asian countries have invested heavily in recruiting postdoctoral researchers tasked with publishing a certain number of papers per year. These postdocs are dangled professorial positions as a carrot. But there is a catch: they need a minimum number of publications.

The postdoc morphs into pursuing publications rather than an honest pursuit of knowledge to learn research skills essential for making sustained contributions to the field. But this is not an Asian problem. More and more universities are adopting this practice that was perfected in the US, since the introduction of the first postdocs in the 1950s.

The persistence of the "publish or perish" mindset stems from the discord between policy statements, university ranking ambitions, and research evaluation practices.

While the postdoc toils to meet contractual obligations and at the same time piling enough publications to meet the minimum requirements for a professorial position, the university climbs the world university rankings ladder through the increase in research output. But that is not all.

A recent study found that about two-thirds of economists at Dutch universities saw both the pros and cons of the publish-or-perish culture, while a third only saw the pros. Guess what? Full professors mostly saw the positives and hardly noticed any negatives. And these are the people who sit on recruitment panels!

What Should I Do If I Want a Job in Academia?

As an early career researcher, you have several options, even though it often appears you have known. First, you can find a job in government or industry where research publications are not a priority. Always remember that choosing this path doesn't make you a failure. It's always important to prioritize our values more than what other people think.

The second option is to publish more; many have adopted this path and it always comes at a cost. I took this path during my postdoc. I published more than 25 papers in my two-year postdoc and these are the two things I did:

1. Collaborations - I collaborated with so many people from across the world, and in the end, looking at my publication list for those two years, you would not be able to identify my area of expertise. I lost myself by attaching to so many research teams.
2. Reviews - Review papers were easy to write because I could sit on my computer and write them over a month or two months without the stress of failed experiments. During my postdoc, I wrote four review papers, which were ridiculously high and made me look like a confused writer and not a focused researcher.

Other people pursued a third option. You can read more about such individuals on Retraction Watch . Such individuals resort to fabricating data, salami slicing, paper mills, and buying co-authorship.

But there is a fourth option; it is highly risky. You can choose to focus on doing excellent science. You can choose to forget about the publish or perish culture. You can brace for rejections as your publication record is considered too small because there is hope.

The Rise of Responsible Metrics Policies

In the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort involving research funders, sector bodies, and infrastructure experts called the Forum for Responsible Research Metrics was founded to address these concerns. Their mission is to advocate for the responsible use of research metrics.

To address the pervasive "publish or perish" culture, the Forum has articulated a practical definition of responsible metrics, outlining five key principles:

1. Robustness: Metrics should be built upon the most accurate and comprehensive data.
2. Humility: Quantitative assessment should complement, not replace, qualitative expert evaluation.
3. Transparency: Evaluation subjects should be able to scrutinize and authenticate the results.
4. Diversity: Metrics should consider the differences among research fields, employing various indicators to encompass the wide array of research and career paths.
5. Reflexivity: Indicators should foresee and account for potential systemic impacts, adapting as necessary.

Multiple universities in the United Kingdom, including 英国纽卡斯尔大学 , the 英国剑桥大学 , the 英国牛津大学 , the 英国布里斯托大学 , and the University College London, have embraced these recommendations, formulating their own Policy Statement on Responsible Use of Research Metrics.

To combat the prevailing culture further, I strongly recommend that those reviewing research, whether for hiring, administration, or funding, receive training in responsible metrics. The persistence of the "publish or perish" mindset stems from the discord between policy statements, university ranking ambitions, and research evaluation practices.