Young researchers guide to survive Academia’s publishing pressure

by Armando Telmo Silva, Cecília Rodrigues, Pedro Brandão, Silvana Lobo

When I grow up, I want to become a Scientist.

The personal motivation for a career in Science is quite unique and may depend on psychological, socioeconomic, among several other factors. Curiosity can be considered as one of the most relevant reasons to become interested in Science. It usually starts during our childhood, when we begin to question why something happens, or how things work, and that curiosity impels us to want to learn more, to acquire new knowledge and, perhaps, discover something unheard that may impact Society as we know it. At the same time, an “entrepreneurial” perspective can be considered. For some people, becoming a scientist constitutes a personal challenge that involves a lot of creativity and innovation, to solve real-world problems. And last, but not least, a humanist perspective may be the trigger to be involved in Science, to aid and cooperate to build a better world.

Expectation vs Reality.

After all expectations created over the years, young researchers are often faced with a different reality from the one they idealized. Many young researchers around the world yearn for a career in Academia and join the race for visibility and recognition of their work (1). However, they often face a big dilemma: to publish their work quickly and in high quality journals versus delaying the publication while managing the time that high-quality research and innovation require (2). This dilemma can lead to frustration and high levels of stress. At the same time, temporary/precarious employment combined with the lack of stable vacancies in the laboratories are a cause of considerable dissatisfaction among young researchers (3). Alongside this situation, the growing supply of doctorates and the lack of capacity to absorb them by Academia and the job-market should lead policy-makers to guide the curricula of universities and involve employers with the aim of creating research posts in the industry and other sectors (4).

The dark side of scientific publication.

“Publish or perish” is a well-known expression among scientists. The improvement and expansion of digital tools, such as social media, is replacing this expression by another one – “get visible or vanish”. The intention? To advert researchers that research planning, execution, interpretation and publication in a peer-review journal is no longer the end of the scientific journey. The creation of multimedia material, as well as media dissemination, is gaining increasing relevance in knowledge translation (5,6). But can young researchers juggle all these tasks? At what cost? The answers are “Yes” and “It is up to you”. First, let’s address the “possible side effects” of this fast-publishing culture Academia is currently submerged in. Pressure is the keyword in what concerns publishing policy in most academic settings. Although pressure affects researchers at every stage of their career, young researchers are more affected, which often leads to several drawbacks – high stress levels, set aside other important tasks (e.g. teaching), chose research topics that are safer for publication outputs, but often lack creativity, relevance and innovation (7). Publishing pressure also affects Science quality, as often irreproducible methodologies are reported and not properly scanned/reviewed, negative results are usually hidden, which is damaging as it could avoid experimental repetition (and therefore save money, time, and resources), and several publications share a common denominator, uncitedness (8,9). Ethical issues can also be raised from this publishing pressure culture. Scientific misconduct, such as data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism and dual submissions, to name a few, are consequences of a very competitive environment, in which Science is no longer made with care and with the aim to develop further knowledge, but to attain personal or someone else’s goals (10,11).

The light at the end of the tunnel.

Even though Science can be extremely competitive and highly pressuring, there are many positive aspects to pursue a scientific career. For instance, as a scientist you will always have new and different subjects to learn. Science is one of the most dynamic areas as it is constantly evolving and updating. So, do not worry, you will never get bored! On the other hand, the increased competitiveness in Science consequently led to higher education standards and more qualified scientists over the years (12). Furthermore, the scientific community has been more collaborative than ever. The collaborative international environment between researchers has increased exponentially over the last decades, resulting in fresh ideas for research topics, wider quantities of produced data and improved quality in research methods (13,14). All these facts lead to higher publishing rates (15). And even though the constant high pressure from Academia to publish leads to high stress rates and reduces scientists motivation to publish, publishing results from your study might be the light at the end of the tunnel for other scientists’ work or for people who will directly benefit from your findings or creations! Being a scientist is not easy and publishing can be frustrating, however, scientists are a big part of the motor that thrives Society progress.

References

1. Tregoning, John. "How will you judge me if not by impact factor?." Nature. 2018 Jun;558 (7710):345.

2. Bonn, Noémie Aubert, and Wim Pinxten. "Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators." BioRxiv (2020).

3. Kinman G, Wray S. “Higher stress: A survey of stress and well-being among staff in higher education.” University College Union (2013).

4. European Science Foundation. “Career Tracking of Doctorate Holders – Pilot Project Report.” European Science Foundation; (2015).

5. Lee, Icy. "Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing." Language teaching 47.2 (2014): 250.

6. Barton, Christian J., and Mark A. Merolli. "It is time to replace publish or perish with get visible or vanish: opportunities where digital and social media can reshape knowledge translation." British Journal of Sports Medicine 53.10 (2019): 594-598.

7. Miller, Alan N., Shannon G. Taylor, and Arthur G. Bedeian. "Publish or perish: academic life as management faculty live it." Career development international (2011).

8. Van Dalen, Hendrik P., and Kène Henkens. "Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63.7 (2012): 1282-1293.

9. Grimes, David Robert, Chris T. Bauch, and John PA Ioannidis. "Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure." Royal Society open science 5.1 (2018): 171511.

10. Herndon, Neil C. "Research fraud and the publish or perish world of academia." (2016): 91-96.

11. Tijdink, Joeri K., Reinout Verbeke, and Yvo M. Smulders. "Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists." Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9.5 (2014): 64-71.

12. Kyvik, Svein, and Terje Olsen. "Does the aging of tenured academic staff affect the research performance of universities?." Scientometrics 76.3 (2008): 439-455.

13. Lee, Sooho, and Barry Bozeman. "The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity." Social studies of science 35.5 (2005): 673-702.

14. Coccia, Mario, and Lili Wang. "Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113.8 (2016): 2057-2061.

15. Kyvik, Svein, and Dag W. Aksnes. "Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic staff: A generational perspective." Studies in Higher Education 40.8 (2015): 1438-1453.