Publish or perish — the imperative for scholars to demonstrate ongoing productivity in terms of articles (and, in some fields, monographs or books) in order to be hired, to be promoted, or sometimes even to keep one's position — has long been a feature of life in universities and research institutes. And while the standards vary slightly across disciplines, institutions, and regions, there is evidence that the pressures have been intensifying. There are many reasons for the trend, some that go well beyond the scope of this editorial. They involve a host of decisions taken over many decades that have led to competition among both individuals and institutions in terms of measurable outputs. The novice academic realizes early on that to never publish or to stop publishing is to jeopardize one's access to external research funding for projects, time away from one's teaching and service obligations to do scholarly work, and advancement opportunities. Many of those reviewing curricula vitae for various purposes have only a vague sense of important ideas and journals in any but their own subfield, so publication counts matter greatly — sometimes critically — while the actual content of the publications can matter little.
展开▼
