The Perils of the Publish or Perish Paradigm
Academia is undergoing a rapid transformation characterized by exponential growth in scholarly outputs. This phenomenon, often termed the “firehose problem,” presents significant challenges for researchers, publishers, funders, policymakers, and institutions alike. Some of these challenges include stresses on the peer-review system, a diminished capacity to stay abreast of the latest research, a shift in the value of quantity over quality of scholarship, and a divergence between the rewards and incentives for producing outputs that meet funder and societal expectations.
In this article, we will explore the implications of the firehose problem and potential approaches to resolving it through reform of incentives and rewards for publishing. We’ll delve into the intricate relationship between supply and demand in academic publishing, the rise of predatory journals, and the growing crisis in the peer review system. Ultimately, we’ll propose a holistic solution that calls for researchers to write more and publish less, shifting the focus to a diverse portfolio of scholarly outputs beyond just peer-reviewed manuscripts.
The Paradox of the Publish or Perish Paradigm
The traditional currency that academic institutions use in exchange for tenure and promotion for their faculty is peer-reviewed publications – and the fiat currency of publishers is peer-reviewed publications. More than fifty years after Silen’s seminal editorial criticizing this “publish or perish” culture, it remains a dominant force in academia.
But is this system serving the advancement of science and scholarship as intended? The evidence suggests otherwise. The rapid growth in the number of scholarly publications has outpaced the ability of the peer review system to maintain quality and rigor. Researchers are increasingly “drinking from the firehose,” struggling to keep up with the deluge of new research.
Publishers, in turn, have responded by building “bigger pipes” to accommodate the ever-increasing flow of submissions. This has led to the proliferation of journals, many with high acceptance rates and questionable quality control measures. The result is a surplus of poor-quality, low-impact research being published, diluting the true advances in science and scholarship.
The Hidden Dependence: Submissions, Journals, and Perverse Incentives
A closer examination of the relationship between the number of submissions and the number of journals reveals a complex, self-replicating feedback loop. As publishers have expanded the number of journals, particularly those with higher acceptance rates, they have inadvertently created a perverse incentive for researchers to submit as many manuscripts as possible.
After all, the underlying probability of acceptance is simply higher in these lower-prestige journals. Publishers often compound this incentive by offering automatic referrals for papers rejected from higher-prestige journals to their own lower-tier outlets, allowing for almost frictionless forwarding of a manuscript to another in-house journal.
This feedback loop is self-replicating and self-expanding, with little disruption in sight. The idea that there are too many journals accepting too many manuscripts for publication is not new, but the dynamics underlying this phenomenon are more complex than a simple supply-and-demand relationship.
The Decline of Peer Review and the Rise of Predatory Practices
Alongside the proliferation of journals, the peer review system has come under increasing strain. There is a growing deficit in the supply of qualified peer reviewers, as fewer and fewer doctorate recipients are entering academic positions where the majority of journal editorial boards are drawn.
At the same time, the incentives and rewards for participating in peer review are woefully inadequate. Peer review is often treated as a service by tenure and promotion committees, rather than a critical component of the scientific process deserving of recognition and reward.
This crisis in peer review threatens the very integrity of the scholarly publishing system. Legitimate journals are finding it increasingly difficult to solicit and retain high-quality, timely peer reviews. Some have resorted to more permissive practices, such as accelerating the publication of “special issues” with relaxed review standards or even bypassing review altogether.
The rise of predatory journals, which promise rapid publication without meaningful peer review, further compounds the problem. These outlets exploit the publish or perish culture, luring researchers with the promise of quick acceptance and publication, often in exchange for hefty article processing charges (APCs).
Reforming the Incentive Structure: Write More, Publish Less
The firehose problem in academic publishing is unlikely to be resolved by changing the pipe fittings alone. The underlying demand is fueled by a complex of misaligned and perverse incentives to publish or perish in academia. Reform at the fittings has only compounded the problem, increasing additional demand on an already stressed peer-review system and favoring quantity over quality of published manuscripts.
A more holistic approach should focus on repairs upstream, away from the nozzle, and to the source of knowledge that flows through the firehose itself – a spring filled with a variety of scholarly outputs beyond just manuscripts. Incentives for filling that spring should mesh with the rewards for publishing offered by funders, academic institutions, policymakers, publishers, and researchers themselves.
By writing more and publishing less, researchers can lower the pressure of the firehose while continuing to make valuable contributions to the world. This means embracing a diverse portfolio of scholarly outputs, such as grant proposals, editorials, policy briefs, blog posts, teaching curricula, software code, and dataset curation. These materials hold incredible value to the scientific community and the public, yet they often go unrecognized in the current publish or perish paradigm.
Harnessing the Power of Preprint Review
One way to address the firehose problem is by embracing preprint review as a mechanism to reform the peer review system. Preprint review shifts the focus from peer review as a gatekeeping hurdle to publication, to a participatory exercise that can improve scholarship and reveal potential issues earlier in the research process.
Preprint review also provides an opportunity for authors to retain control over their intellectual property and its derivatives, aligning with a philosophy of science that treats communication as a conversation rather than a broadcast. Models of preprint review, such as PREreview’s live review and ASAPbio’s crowd preprint review, are gaining traction and demonstrating the benefits of this approach.
As more funders, like the Gates Foundation, require the deposition of preprints, the perception that all preprints lack review can be challenged. Preprint review can complement – rather than replace – traditional peer review, creating a more robust and transparent ecosystem for scholarly communication.
Fostering Collegiality and Collaborative Reform
Alleviating the pressure coming out of the firehose requires a collaborative effort among all stakeholders in the scholarly publishing ecosystem. Researchers, funders, academic institutions, policymakers, and publishers must work together to align incentives and reform the system.
This calls for a spirit of collegiality, where each group recognizes its role and responsibility in addressing the challenges posed by the firehose problem. Researchers must leverage their market power to demand changes in the incentive structure, while publishers and academic institutions must be willing to embrace new models and reward a diverse range of scholarly outputs.
By writing more and publishing less, researchers can shift the balance, filling the spring with a richer tapestry of knowledge that extends far beyond the narrow confines of the peer-reviewed manuscript. This, in turn, can lead to a more sustainable, transparent, and impactful scholarly publishing system – one that truly serves the advancement of science and scholarship.
Conclusion: Embracing a Holistic Approach to Scholarly Communication
The firehose problem in academic publishing is a complex challenge that requires a multifaceted solution. Reforming the incentive structure, addressing the crisis in peer review, and embracing a diverse portfolio of scholarly outputs beyond just peer-reviewed manuscripts – these are the key elements of a holistic approach to addressing the challenges posed by the rapid growth in scholarly publications.
By writing more and publishing less, researchers can reclaim the power to shape the scholarly communication landscape, focusing on the quality and impact of their work rather than the quantity of their publications. This shift in mindset, coupled with collaborative efforts among all stakeholders, can help to alleviate the pressure of the firehose and ensure that the spring of knowledge remains pure, abundant, and accessible to all.
