‘Publish or Perish’: Academics Pumping Out Trivial Research for the Sake of the Dollar

Biologist at SciCons works in the laboratory in Szirak, Hungary, on May 28, 2021. (Ajpek Orsi/Getty Images)

Commentary

In a 2015 piece for Time magazine, writer Jeffrey Klugerin listed the ten most ridiculous scientific studies.

Hilarious examples include: “Quitting smoking after heart attack reduces chest pain, improves quality of life,” “Statistical analysis reveals Mexican drug war increased homicide rates,” and “Scientists discover a difference between the sexes.”

It is concerning that research grants—taxpayers’ money—are frequently allocated to weird and undeserving projects. This concern is exacerbated if the research topic is utterly ridiculous or fails the test of societal impact.

Even if research studies are, at least potentially, meaningful from a social perspective, they are frequently so badly written that it becomes impossible to gauge their societal impact.

In this context, the Research Impact Principles outlined by the Australian Research Council (ARC) are refreshing because they acknowledge that valuable research must have societal benefits.

Since 2012, a working group has developed an ordinary understanding of approaches to, and reporting of, research impact, noting that it must also contribute to the “economy, society, environment or culture, beyond the contribution to academic research.”

Professor Ian Frazer is pictured at work in a bio medical laboratory at the PA Hospital in Brisbane, Australia, on Aug. 12, 2005. (Jonathan Wood/Getty Images)

Publish or Perish?

In academic circles, “publish or perish” dominates the professional lives of university staff.

The phrase has roots stretching back to 1932—or even earlier—but it became well-known when sociologist Logan Wilson began referring to it in his 1942 book “The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Profession.”

Since then, the concept has continued hanging ominously over the heads of academics like the Sword of Damocles.

Despite its omnipresence, the “publish or perish” phenomenon has been relentlessly criticised.

For example, Hannah Arendt, a political theorist of the 20th century, stated in 1972 that: “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 for them to keep their jobs and get the proper promotion, they’ve got to do it. It demeans the whole of intellectual life.”

Undoubtedly, Arendt’s views are widely shared.

The fear that careers might stall because of research inactivity has spurred a significant increase in the quantity of research papers, often published in journals with questionable credentials.

Not surprisingly, this quantity comes at the expense of quality and disregards the expectation that research should benefit society, while omitting the usual standards of excellence and objectivity.

Indeed, even common sense suggests, and experience confirms, that many research studies and reports are balderdash and trivial pursuits—ultimately a waste of scarce resources.

Thomas Altmann, head of the Department of Molecular Genetics and also head of the Research Group Heterosis, examines rapeseed plants growing under lights that imitate the sun in a hall that enables scientists to grow new plant variants for testing under precise environmental conditions in Gatersleben, Germany, on April 22, 2021. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

It’s All About the Money

As experience indicates, it is a challenging task to ensure that research is socially relevant.

This is even recognised in universities where sometimes a distinction is made between “teaching” and “research” academics, with only the latter required to do research.

Of course, this distinction itself is problematic because it distorts their traditional roles. Research and teaching are intertwined: an academic becomes a better teacher by doing research, and a better researcher by teaching their discipline.

Nevertheless, academics and the universities that employ them are dependent on external research funding, often regarded as a desirable quality of effective researchers.

Yet Emeritus Prof. Jeffrey Goldsworthy has said that “research grant mania“ has a negative impact because it “is a grossly inaccurate method of evaluating research performance.”

He argues that giving more weight to “grantsmanship” when appointments and promotions are being considered will damage “scholarly morale and enthusiasm.”

Arendt’s prophetic words “publish or perish” come to mind again and should be something seriously considered by academic leaders.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.