The “Publish or Perish” Paradigm in Academia

The phrase “Publish or Perish” (POP) is widely associated with the pressure academicians face to continually publish their research. While some credit Calvin Coolidge with coining the term in 1932,[1] others argue that Logan Wilson introduced it in 1942 in his book “The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Profession.”[2] Regardless of its origin, the term aptly describes the relentless expectation to publish scholarly work to secure jobs, achieve promotions, or obtain research funding. Failure to do so can lead to non-recruitment, stalled careers, or even termination. This race against time begins at recruitment and often continues until retirement. Leading academic institutions, both public and private, further reinforce this culture in pursuit of rankings and sustained funding.

The “POP” culture has its merits. It drives academicians to generate new ideas and share them, enabling other researchers to build upon them. This cycle of dissemination and innovation is crucial for scientific progress. A high-quality publication enhances the credibility of both the researcher and the institution, often attracting more recognition and funding. Moreover, publication metrics offer a relatively objective way to assess academic performance, helping to mitigate nepotism and favoritism.

However, this culture also has its dark side. In the rush to publish, some researchers may engage in unethical practices, such as duplicate publications, plagiarism, data fabrication, salami slicing, and ghost authorship.[3] These behaviors have contributed to a rise in article retractions over the years. Additionally, there is often a disproportionate focus on publishing in high-impact international journals, even when the research is more applicable to local contexts. This shift in focus risks diminishing the practical relevance of academic work.

Researchers should prioritize quality over quantity in their publications. These publications should contribute meaningfully to existing knowledge and ideally lead to improved patient care and practices. Academic administrators must strike a balance between research, teaching, and clinical care when making decisions about recruitment, performance assessments, and promotions.

Currently, we primarily assess academic productivity through research-focused metrics such as impact factor, citation index, number of downloads, and h-index. However, a well-rounded evaluation of an academician's performance should include research, teaching, and clinical service. We need to develop robust, objective metrics to measure teaching effectiveness and clinical care. For teaching, indicators might include the number of lectures delivered at local and national levels, grand round invitations, student evaluation scores, and feedback. For clinical care, we could measure factors such as patient experience, safety events, and contributions to program development.

As authors, reviewers, and editors, we share the responsibility of adopting a balanced and ethical approach to the “POP” doctrine. Authors must avoid predatory journals and “paper mills” that churn out paid articles for profit. Increasingly, drug and device companies are supporting publications to promote products while offering academic visibility to young physicians—this practice must be discouraged. Ethical standards must always be upheld. Editorial boards should ensure rigorous and transparent peer review processes. Fake peer reviews have no place in scientific discourse. Published work must be of high quality, with reproducible methodologies and societal impact, especially in terms of patient care. Upholding the integrity of medical research is paramount.

Ultimately, striking an optimal balance between research, teaching, and clinical care is essential in navigating the pressures of “POP.”

 

MissingLinkText

No conflict of interest has been declared by the author(s).

• References

• 1 Coolidge HJ, Lord, RH. Archibald Cary Coolidge: Life and Letters. United States: Books for Libraries; 1932: 308
• 2 Moosa IA. Publish or perish: Origin and perceived benefits. In: Publish or Perish: Perceived Benefits versus Unintended Consequences. 2018: 1-17
• 3 Rawat S, Meena S. Publish or perish: Where are we heading?. J Res Med Sci 2014; 19 (02) 87-89

Publication History

Article published online:
02 August 2025