Challenging 'publish or perish' culturea"researchers call for overhaul of academic publishing

Published in Science and Technology on Sunday, August 24th 2025 at 18:44 GMT by Phys.org
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Academic Publishing Gets a New Lease on Life: From “Publish or Perish” to Transparent, Open Science

In a sweeping reassessment of the world’s scholarly communication, a new report released this week by the Phys.org news desk details an ambitious overhaul of the entrenched “publish or perish” culture that has dominated academia for decades. The article—titled “Publish or Perish Culture Gets a Makeover” and dated 27 April 2025—charts a multi‑tiered plan that seeks to shift the focus from journal prestige and article counts to open, reproducible, and context‑rich science. It draws on a range of sources, from policy statements by the Wellcome Trust and the National Institutes of Health to case studies from leading universities that have already begun to abandon tenure‑based publication quotas.

The Problem With the Status Quo

The report opens by outlining the chronic tensions of today’s system. “The phrase publish or perish is now an insult to anyone who wishes to do meaningful research,” writes Dr. Elena Mendez, a senior science policy analyst at the University of Cambridge. “The metric‑driven culture pushes scientists to prioritize quantity over quality, fosters a ‘race to the first’ mentality, and fuels the rise of predatory journals and questionable publishing practices.”

Mendez cites a 2024 survey of 1,200 researchers worldwide that found 78 % of respondents felt “extreme pressure to publish,” and 43 % admitted that this pressure had led to compromised data handling or rushed experiments. The same survey flagged a troubling trend: 27 % of academics said they had skipped a journal’s peer‑review process entirely, submitting pre‑prints or “self‑published” reports to meet deadlines.

The New Playbook: Open Data, Open Review, and Article‑Level Metrics

The core of the overhaul, as the article explains, is a three‑pronged shift:

Open Data and Method Transparency – New guidelines from the Wellcome Trust (see linked policy at wellcome.org) now make data sharing a requirement for all funded projects. Researchers are expected to deposit raw data, code, and detailed methods in public repositories before the final manuscript is even drafted. The trust’s policy also mandates a reproducibility check by an independent reviewer during the funding application process.
Open and Post‑Publication Peer Review – The article notes that journals like Nature and Science have begun to pilot “open review” models in which reviewer comments are published alongside the article. More radical, the report highlights the European Open Science Framework’s (EOSC) “Post‑publication Review Hub,” which allows the wider scientific community to comment on published work at any time. This approach, the report argues, creates a living record of scrutiny and facilitates corrections or retractions well after publication.
Article‑Level Impact Metrics – The long‑dominated Impact Factor is getting a makeover. The article explains that a growing consortium of institutions, including the University of Toronto and the Max Planck Society, are adopting the “Article‑Level Metrics” (ALM) system, which tracks downloads, citations, social‑media mentions, and policy citations. “Metrics should reflect real use and influence, not merely journal prestige,” says Dr. Raj Patel, a data scientist at the University of Toronto.

Early Adoption: Case Studies from Around the Globe

To illustrate how these reforms are already playing out, the Phys.org piece profiles three institutions that have taken bold steps.

University College London (UCL) – UCL’s Faculty of Social Sciences has replaced publication count with a “research quality score” that weighs methodological rigor, data availability, and real‑world impact. The faculty reports a 12 % decline in the average number of publications per faculty member, but a 37 % increase in open‑access articles and a 22 % rise in policy citations.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – MIT’s Office of Research Integrity announced that from 2025, tenure reviews will require a “research integrity dossier,” which includes open‑review commentary and reproducibility assessments. The office expects a 30 % reduction in the rate of post‑publication retractions over the next five years.
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) – In a collaboration with the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT), UNAM is piloting a “Research Impact Index” that integrates alt‑metrics and real‑world outcomes such as patent filings and community outreach. The pilot has attracted significant media attention and is already influencing how grant proposals are evaluated by CONACyT.

The Road Ahead: Opportunities and Challenges

The report does not shy away from the potential pitfalls of such a sweeping transformation. One concern is the increased administrative burden on researchers, who must now prepare comprehensive data packages and navigate new peer‑review workflows. “If the burden of data curation and open‑review is not offset by institutional support, we risk a new form of gatekeeping,” cautions Dr. Maya Nassar of the International Association for the Study of Social Sciences.

Another challenge lies in ensuring equity across disciplines. The article points out that fields such as humanities and social sciences, where data may be less easily shared or standardized, may face hurdles in meeting open‑data requirements. Initiatives like the Humanities Data Lab, linked in the Phys.org piece, are working to develop discipline‑specific guidelines that balance openness with the ethical constraints of sensitive information.

Despite these hurdles, the overall tone of the article is optimistic. The convergence of policy mandates, institutional reforms, and evolving norms around transparency suggests a realignment of academic values. “The shift is not just about how we publish; it’s about how we think about research itself,” concludes Dr. Mendez. “When the pressure to produce a certain number of journal articles is removed, researchers can invest more time in thoughtful experimentation, robust analysis, and meaningful dissemination.”

Where to Go From Here

Readers interested in the nitty‑gritty of the new open‑science policies can follow the links included in the original Phys.org article:

Wellcome Trust Open Data Policy – wellcome.org
European Open Science Framework Post‑Publication Hub – eosc.eu
Max Planck Society Article‑Level Metrics Initiative – mpg.de
UCL Faculty Quality Score Guidelines – ucl.ac.uk
MIT Research Integrity Dossier – mit.edu

The article’s final note reminds scholars, administrators, and policymakers that while the road to a more open, fair, and reproducible scholarly ecosystem will be complex, it is already under construction. The new “publish or perish” paradigm may finally be giving way to a culture that values depth, transparency, and real‑world impact over sheer quantity.

Read the Full Phys.org Article at:
[ https://phys.org/news/2025-04-publish-perish-culture-overhaul-academic.html ]

N※N