Publish or perish?

The expression ‘Publish or Perish’ is ubiquitous in the academic world. It is attributed to Logan Wilson, who in his The Academic Man, observed: “The prevailing pragmatism forced upon the academic group is that one must write something and get it into print. Situational imperatives dictate a ‘publish or perish’ credo within the ranks.”

At a later date, Hannah Arendt disappointingly remarked: “This business of ‘publish or perish’ has been a catastrophe. People write things which should never have been written and which should never be printed. Nobody’s interested.” But ‘Publish or Perish’ continues to reverberate and haunt the academia. Why, and, to what consequence, are the key questions to ponder.

In answering ‘why’, Logan Wilson cites certain ‘situational imperatives’ including increments, promotions, funding opportunities, publicity, or even to secure tenure track positions in leading universities. Boosting academic performance index (API) score is yet another motivation.

The University Grants Commission (UGC) recognises two categories of publications in this regard: articles published in journals and research papers published in the form of books or book chapters. Since the so-called “international” publications carry more API points, numerous predatory publishers prefixing “international” in various journal titles have mushroomed.

Out of compulsion, especially at the time of appraisals or promotion interviews, some do not mind paying a hefty fee to publish articles in a matter of few days: submit today, accept tomorrow and publish the day after. Quantity has clearly taken precedence over the quality. The use of bibliometric parameters like the number of publications and the impact factor of the journals have become key yardsticks to measure successful ‘careerism’.

These are not without consequences. Due to such publication compulsions, as Hannah Arendt pertinently observes: “The one who really loses is the person who has a passionate interest in matters of the mind, who is an excellent reader, who can establish contact with her/his students and make them understand that her/his subject is important, but who will not write. Or, if s/he is forced to write, will not write well. And, by doing something which s/he is forced to do because of ‘publish or perish,’ s/he will become a lesser person.”

Overall, it “demeans the whole of intellectual life”.

Nobel laureate Peter Higgs was categorical that he would not be “regarded as productive enough” and he “wouldn’t get an academic job” in the present-day academic culture that expects academics to churn out papers. Daniel Kahneman, another Nobel laureate, has a similar story. These are clear cases of ‘criterion contamination’. The ‘publish or perish’ culture might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research leading to unethical practices. Requisite rigour for producing quality papers goes awry. Indulging in self-citations to boost one’s citation indices is the most unfortunate part.

To address this issue, academic institutions may do well to consider bifurcating their faculty into ‘teaching-heavy’ and ‘research-heavy’. Although research and teaching should ideally go together, in practice, good writers need not necessarily be good teachers and vice versa. Publications could be made an option for those who excel in the craft of teaching; teaching hours of those who publish seriously could be reduced. Numerous administrative tasks, which require serious attention, distract both the categories.

Pressure starts right from the university ranking or accreditation system; hence the process of ranking could consider innovation, and ultimate impact of publications on society at large, rather than just the numbers. There are several questions raised on the existing impact-factor calculation. Although the UGC has done a commendable job in bringing the “CARE list” of journals, there is still a long way to go in alleviating ambiguity and bringing in clarity in the way quality of publications is determined. Private universities that have done well on the publications front could be involved in the overall quality control process.

Then, should we not publish at all? We must certainly do, but for right reasons. Two of such correct reasons are worth noting: to unravel the unknown and expand the frontier of knowledge in a particular area; to find solution to a problem or to evaluate existing policies. Both are based on intense research. The former is called ‘basic/fundamental research’ and the latter ‘policy/applied research’. However, since most articles are not written for right reasons, thousands of them are unread and uncited, calling into question the very purpose of publications.

Overall, academic publishing is in a rot that requires immediate stemming. Is this rot not our own making? As Johnston rightly puts it, “We have met our enemy and it is us.” The entire publication process should be a pleasurable and meaningful journey. A new slogan, therefore, should be “Publish and Cherish” rather than “Publish or Perish.”

(The author is Director, Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru)