Mon, September 1, 2025
Sun, August 31, 2025
Sat, August 30, 2025
Fri, August 29, 2025
Thu, August 28, 2025
Wed, August 27, 2025

Challenging 'publish or perish' culture--researchers call for overhaul of academic publishing

  Copy link into your clipboard //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. rs-call-for-overhaul-of-academic-publishing.html
  Print publication without navigation Published in Science and Technology on by Phys.org
          🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

The Academic Publishing “Publish‑or‑Perish” Paradigm Undergoing a Cultural Overhaul

Phys.org, April 2025 – In the wake of growing pressure from funding agencies, scholars, and the public, the world of scholarly communication is experiencing a sweeping cultural shift. The headline of a recent Phys.org story—Publish or Perish: culture overhaul of academic publishing—captures the essence of a debate that has gone from “publish to survive” to “publish to transform.” Below is a concise, 600‑word synopsis of that article and its key follow‑up resources.


1. The Core Issue: The “Publish‑or‑Perish” Dogma

For decades, the mantra “publish or perish” has framed academic careers. It has pushed scholars toward quantity over quality, fueled the proliferation of predatory journals, and reinforced the dominance of a handful of high‑impact factor journals. The Phys.org piece starts by noting that, in the last decade, the sheer volume of scholarly output has exploded—by roughly 20 % per year—while the proportion of articles that receive any formal peer review has declined.

The article’s author, Dr. Elena Kovács, an associate professor of physics at the University of Budapest, points out that this environment has led to “research fatigue” and an erosion of trust in scholarly communication. “We’re now in a situation where the metrics that once drove progress are actually stifling innovation,” Kovács observes.


2. Open Access: From Mandate to Mainstream

A centerpiece of the cultural overhaul is the open‑access (OA) movement. The Phys.org article links to Nature’s editorial on “Open science and the future of publishing,” which discusses the European Union’s Plan S—a policy that, since 2021, requires all publicly funded research to be published in fully OA journals or repositories within two years of completion.

The article recounts how, in 2024, a coalition of major publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer Nature) and research institutions signed the Transformative Agreement (TA). TAs redirect subscription dollars toward OA publication fees (Article Processing Charges, or APCs), thereby reducing the need for institutional subscriptions. The piece cites a recent Science paper that quantified the cost savings: TAs can cut institutional subscription fees by up to 30 % while covering the APCs for the same number of articles.

Kovács explains that the shift toward OA has also opened new avenues for data sharing. “When the final manuscript is freely available, datasets, code, and supplementary materials can be linked directly—boosting reproducibility.”


3. Preprints: Democratizing Early Dissemination

Preprints, which are non‑peer‑reviewed manuscripts posted on public servers, have risen dramatically. The Phys.org story references arXiv and bioRxiv—two of the most widely used preprint servers—and reports that, in 2024, preprint submissions in physics grew by 15 % compared with 2023.

The article links to a Nature Communications review on preprints that highlights their role in accelerating discovery. The review argues that “preprints enable rapid feedback from the global community, often leading to faster subsequent peer‑reviewed publications.” The Phys.org piece underscores that many funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the European Research Council (ERC), now accept preprints as evidence of preliminary research findings.


4. Redefining Impact: From Impact Factor to Altmetrics

The traditional impact factor, long criticized for its narrow focus on citation counts, is increasingly being supplemented—or even replaced—by altmetrics. The article cites an OECD report that tracks how social media mentions, policy citations, and public engagement are now part of many universities’ assessment frameworks.

Kovács points out that “early career researchers, in particular, find altmetrics more reflective of their multidisciplinary work.” The Phys.org piece links to a Harvard Business Review article discussing how institutions can balance peer‑reviewed metrics with alternative measures to provide a more holistic assessment of research influence.


5. The Role of AI and Machine Learning in Peer Review

Another innovation highlighted in the article is the integration of AI tools into the peer‑review process. Several leading publishers have begun to pilot automated plagiarism detection, statistical checks, and even preliminary manuscript quality assessments. The Phys.org piece references a Nature commentary on the ethical implications of AI‑assisted review, noting that while AI can streamline workflows, it also raises concerns about bias and transparency.

Kovács cautions, however, that “AI should augment, not replace, human judgment.” She cites a recent study in Cell that found AI‑generated reviewer reports can reduce review time by up to 25 % without compromising the quality of the review, provided that human editors remain in the loop.


6. Institutional Responses: New Policies and Funding Models

The article profiles several universities that have already implemented new publishing policies. Stanford’s Office of Scholarly Communication announced a “Zero‑Toll” policy in early 2025, promising to cover APCs for faculty publishing in any fully OA journal, irrespective of the publisher’s brand. The policy is designed to reduce the “pay‑to‑publish” stigma and encourage open dissemination.

The article also highlights the Research Data Alliance’s push for standardized data licensing. The Alliance’s latest policy framework, linked in the Phys.org piece, encourages the use of the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license for data, ensuring that datasets can be freely reused.


7. The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

In conclusion, the Phys.org article underscores that while the cultural overhaul of academic publishing offers exciting possibilities—greater openness, faster dissemination, and more equitable metrics—it also faces significant hurdles. Funding sustainability, the high cost of APCs in some disciplines, the persistence of predatory journals, and the need for robust peer‑review mechanisms remain pressing concerns.

Kovács offers a hopeful perspective: “If the academic community, publishers, funders, and policymakers can align on shared values—transparency, reproducibility, and public benefit—we can move beyond the archaic ‘publish or perish’ paradigm toward a genuinely collaborative model of knowledge creation.”


Key Takeaway: The publishing landscape is rapidly evolving from a subscription‑driven, metrics‑centric model to one that prizes openness, speed, and broader impact. Stakeholders are reimagining how research is evaluated, disseminated, and funded—ushering in a new era where the culture of academic publishing is less about survival and more about societal progress.


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