The longstanding "publish or perish" culture in academia is coming under renewed scrutiny, as a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that current incentives in academic publishing can hinder scientific progress and knowledge sharing.
The study, "The Misalignment of Incentives in Academic Publishing and Implications for Journal Reform," explores how the traditional academic publishing model entangles personal career advancement with the broader scientific goals of advancing knowledge. This tension, the study warns, can distort scientific integrity and exacerbate systemic inequities.
Ruth N. Halls Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences Jennifer Trueblood
Jennifer Trueblood, the Ruth N. Halls Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences (PBS) in the College of Arts and Sciences at Indiana University Bloomington, is the lead author of the study with IU colleagues Distinguished Professor David Allison, Associate Professor of Cognitive Science William Holmes, and Mary Murphy, the Class of 1948 Herman B Wells Endowed Professor in PBS-along with co-authors from universities and institutes across the US, Europe and in Israel.
Central to the issue of misalignment of incentives in academic publishing is what the authors describe as the "prestige economy" that dominates academic publishing-the practice of researchers prioritizing the submission of their research studies to high-profile journals with large circulation and influence in the scientific community.
Fueling this problem, the authors explain, is that "the major factors that influence tenure and promotion in science and many other academic disciplines are publications, citations, and grant funding." These factors, the authors note, "are interdependent, as the likelihood of obtaining grants is affected by one's publication record, and the ability to publish is dependent on (among other things) getting one's research funded. Both of these factors put a great deal of pressure on researchers, especially in the early stages of their careers."
Trueblood's study finds that this system can create perverse incentives, leading researchers to focus on quantity over quality.
"Publishing should be about advancing knowledge, not gaming metrics," said Professor Trueblood. "The tension in the current system has real consequences for science, researchers, and the public."
The dominance of large commercial publishers exacerbates the problem. A small number of companies control a large share of the academic publishing market and generate profit margins off of the work of unpaid peer reviewers-academics often seeking to publish in these and other journals-while these large companies charge universities and other institutions exorbitant fees for journal access.
Today, research shared outside the peer review system receives little recognition in most institutional evaluations. In many fields, commercial publishers dominate the publishing landscape and, in doing so, exert significant control over the academic prestige economy. As a result, journals that were once focused on sharing scientific discoveries now often function as gatekeepers of career advancement, reinforcing the publish-or-perish culture and limiting recognition for alternative forms of scholarly contribution.
A call for reform
The implications of this study extend far beyond the confines of academia. A system that favors high-impact journal metrics over rigorous, reproducible science can contribute to the "replication crisis"-a situation where major scientific studies fail to be confirmed by subsequent research, eroding public trust in science at large.
In response to these deep-rooted issues, the study proposes a multifaceted approach to reform that can realign incentives to better reflect the core mission of advancing scientific understanding.
One proposed reform is shifting journal control from profit-driven commercial entities to academic institutions and nonprofit organizations. Notably, the study references recent events where entire editorial boards have resigned in protest-such as the 2023 departure from NeuroImage-to launch nonprofit alternatives like Imaging Neuroscience, a move intended to prioritize rigorous, quality research over profit.
Another promising direction is the adoption of new publishing models. Researchers are increasingly turning to preprint servers-online platforms that allow rapid dissemination of findings without the delays inherent in traditional peer review. Experimentation is also underway with modular publishing formats, in which research is released in smaller, more transparent increments, and with community-driven peer review platforms like Peer Community In (PCI).
The authors stress that reforming academic publishing must go hand in hand with rethinking academic evaluation. Instead of relying on a single metric or a "counting" mentality, they propose developing a menu of metrics that can be tailored to different evaluation contexts. These might include measures of researcher impact, the number of replication attempts a study generates, and indicators of societal relevance.
While no single metric is flawless, using multiple metrics in combination can provide a more balanced view of scholarly contributions and help reduce the risk of gaming the system. This approach could help shift the focus from quantity to quality, encouraging scientists to pursue more meaningful, long-term projects rather than fragmenting their findings into as many publishable units as possible.
A roadmap for a robust research ecosystem
Trueblood and colleagues point out that there is not a single silver bullet to fix the system. Rather, they advocate for collective action from universities, funding agencies, and the research community at large. By embracing alternative publication models and revising evaluation criteria, the academic world can work together to create a more inclusive, equitable, and effective publishing environment.
"The goal is to realign the incentives so that knowledge is truly shared and scientific advances are valued for their contribution to society," Trueblood said. "This isn't just about changing the rules for a few researchers-it's about redefining what counts as success in science."
As debates over the future of academic publishing intensify, this study provides a roadmap for fostering a research ecosystem that prioritizes discovery and integrity over mere numbers. The call to reform comes at a time when the stakes are high-not just for science, but for the broader public that ultimately depends on robust, reliable, and widely shared research.
