If you’ve ever spent time in academia, you’ve probably heard the phrase “publish or perish.” It captures a reality that has become the defining pressure of modern scientific life: the number of papers, citations, and impact factors can make or break careers. A recent essay (https://theconversation.com/publish-or-perish-evolutionary-pressures-shape-scientific-publishing-for-better-and-worse-259258) in The Conversation described this as an “evolutionary” process shaping publishing—sometimes for better, often for worse.
The problem is not that scientists publish—it’s that the incentives for what, where, and how they publish are misaligned with the values of rigorous, meaningful, and trustworthy science. The result? A flood of papers, overloaded peer reviewers, questionable practices, and a global game of metrics that rewards speed over substance.
So what could we do differently? And what stands in the way of fixing the system? Let’s unpack some potential solutions—and the challenges baked into each.
1. Move Beyond “Paper Counts”
The idea: Instead of judging researchers by the sheer number of publications or the prestige of journals, universities and funding bodies could evaluate broader contributions: research quality, reproducibility, mentorship, teaching, and societal impact. Narrative CVs, where scientists explain their most important contributions, are already being tested.
The challenge: Counting papers is simple. Evaluating quality is not. Narrative CVs demand more time from reviewers, and there’s always the risk of subjective bias creeping in. Institutions under pressure for global rankings may resist abandoning easy metrics.
2. Reward Open and Transparent Science
The idea: Encourage practices like data and code sharing, pre-registration of studies, and open peer review. Platforms like preprint servers and community peer review can help science become faster, fairer, and more reproducible.
The challenge: Transparency takes effort. Sharing data safely and ethically can be complex, especially in clinical or sensitive research. Many scientists worry about being “scooped” if they post preprints. And while openness sounds good, not all disciplines or countries have the same infrastructure to support it.
3. Reform Journal Incentives
The idea: Promote diamond open access (free for both authors and readers, funded by institutions or consortia) and support non-profit journals run by scholarly societies. These models reduce the temptation to publish more papers just to drive revenue.
The challenge: Someone still has to pay. Diamond open access shifts costs onto universities or governments, and sustaining this at scale isn’t trivial. Meanwhile, commercial publishers hold enormous power and profit margins, and they’re not eager to dismantle a system that benefits them.
4. Use Smarter, Not Just More, Metrics
The idea: Retire the dominance of the h-index and journal impact factor. Instead, use a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures: field-normalized citation scores, peer assessments, and indicators of transparency or replication.
The challenge: Every new metric can be gamed. Citation cartels, self-citation, and inflated co-authorship already show how creative scientists can get. And too many metrics risk becoming as overwhelming and confusing as the old system.
5. Recognize and Support Peer Review
The idea: Give credit, visibility, or even small stipends to reviewers and editors. Without them, the whole publishing machine collapses, yet most of this labor is invisible and unpaid.
The challenge: Paying reviewers might professionalize peer review, but it could also privilege well-funded disciplines and publishers. Recognition systems (like ORCID credit) help, but they don’t solve the workload problem—there are simply too many papers chasing too few reviewers.
6. Experiment with New Models
The idea: Try alternatives like overlay journals (which curate and peer-review preprints instead of publishing afresh) or “slow science” models that value depth over volume. Funders could give grants to researchers who prioritize reproducibility, replication, or long-term data curation.
The challenge: Cultural inertia is strong. Scientists under career pressure rarely feel free to “slow down,” especially early-career researchers. Overlay journals are promising, but without prestige and visibility, few scientists will risk their careers on them.
7. Foster Cultural Change Through Mentorship
The idea: Senior scientists can mentor younger researchers to resist the race for quantity and instead aim for rigor, creativity, and integrity. Institutions could explicitly reward such mentorship.
The challenge: Cultural change is the hardest of all. Senior scientists are themselves products of the “publish or perish” system and may have incentives to perpetuate it. Shifting norms takes decades, not years.
So, Where Does This Leave Us?
The “publish or perish” culture isn’t going away overnight. But that doesn’t mean we’re powerless. What’s needed is a multi-pronged shift: change how institutions evaluate success, reform journals’ financial incentives, build infrastructure for openness, and reshape cultural norms around what good science looks like.
The irony is that scientists know all about perverse incentives—we study them in economics, evolution, and ecology. The challenge now is to apply that same analytical clarity to our own ecosystem.
Because at the end of the day, the goal isn’t just to publish. The goal is to produce science that lasts.
