Contemporary academia is marked by intense competition, where the significance of academic publications is constantly emphasized. In this publication-driven academic environment, there are several key trends: a dominant “publish or perish” culture; papers in international journals serving as the currency of prestige while also being insufficient to ensure survival or success; the “dismissal” of other publications; peer-review processes coming under pressure; and research funding being turned into an end, rather than a means to an end.

The academic profession has been changing globally, with research taking center stage. Publications are now crucial, not only for the advancement of knowledge, but also for academic recruitment, career advancement, job stability, and recognition within and across institutions and research fields. Several salient trends are shaping the landscape of knowledge production in academia.

“Publish or Perish” Prevails Alongside the Rise of “Get Visible or Vanish”

Nonstop publishing during the postgraduate period and throughout the career is now essential, with publications becoming the “hard currency” to secure job opportunities, career stability, and standing. Yet, despite the continuous publishing of high-quality work being seen as a “tried-and-true” route to entry and survival in academia, it may not be enough for many academics. The “visibility” of research outputs matters more than ever, and academics are compelled to magnify influence and extend reach (including in social media) to foster citation numbers and attain broader recognition. The “get visible or vanish” dynamics have recast the rules of the game in academia, placing additional stress and workload on academics. The focus on knowledge production is shifting to a combined focus on producing and spreading the word about research outputs. Just as in commercial sectors, producing a product is not enough; one must also market and sell it. These trends have led to large numbers of papers being published, to the prevalence of short-term research cycles (supported by research funding expectations), increased pressure on the peer-review system, and claims of decreasing scientific breakthroughs.

Discrepancies in the Recognition of Research and Publishing Efforts

Furthermore, the word “publication” is now equated primarily with papers published in indexed international peer-reviewed journals. Books, book chapters, and other publications are usually dismissed, as are publications in national languages, to the detriment of the humanities and social sciences, as well as national communities. Publishing quality is often judged by the rankings and related metrics of journals, despite extensive criticism by academics, librarians, and scientometricians as being inadequate to serve such purposes. Still, universities regularly adhere to journal listings as benchmarks to assess the work of academics. Such practices shape publishing choices, fostering journal fetishism, constraining the dissemination of research to target audiences, and often undermining interdisciplinarity. Since the incentives are all on the side of publishing, imbalances in the publishing process are now entrenched. The ever-growing number of paper submissions to international journals overwhelm editors and reviewers alike, leading to slower, biased, and conflicting review processes, and dissatisfaction with peer review. Even though peer-reviewing has a central role in science, there is little to no reward or recognition for doing this job. Therefore, it is unsurprising that a growing number of predatory journals offer expedited “review” and publication processes for a fee, or that many paper submissions and reviews show evidence of misconduct and unethical behavior, such as the use of artificial intelligence-generated texts.

Research Funding as an Output Measure to Support Research

Many of the trends above also relate to research funding, which is becoming increasingly competitive. Research funding is shifting from being a means to an end (resources to do research), to being an end in itself. Recruitment and career progression depend on obtaining research funding almost as much as publications. Here, too, as with publishing, status signals matter. It is not only about obtaining funding; the source of funding is crucial, with grants from international research-funding agencies, as well as top-tier national ones, receiving greater recognition. Lower success rates in obtaining funding from a given agency amplify its perceived value compared to that from agencies with higher success rates. The trend parallels the trends in publishing.

Conclusion

The sustainability of any system requires balance. Currently, the academic research system is becoming increasingly unbalanced. There is an overemphasis on publication numbers and metrics, and, although these are relevant and should not be dismissed, they cannot be everything or even most of the equation. Evaluation and assessment systems ought to be broader in scope and recognize that academia’s contribution to knowledge and society is multifunctional and often rooted in intangibles. These cannot be easily captured with existing metrics, particularly not in the short term. Unheard-of research can have a profound impact decades later. Indeed, uncertainty and timing are key to innovation and adoption. A whole-rounded system is necessary for science and academia, because academic research and activities deal with intricate challenges, necessitating a complex array of activities. For the sake of a sustainable academic system, rewards and career schemes should consider a multitude of tasks and outputs, or alternatively, support specialization within academic careers.

Yingxin Liu is lecturer at the School of Humanities and Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China. E-mail: [email protected].

Hugo Horta is associate professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, China. E-mail: [email protected].