Publish or Perish: Global Pressures in the Race for Academic Relevance
Dikshit Chawla
Keywords: Publish or perish, academia, impact factor, tenure, paper mills, predatory publishers, UGC-CARE, narrative CVs, open access, burnout, mental health, research ethics, collaboration, innovation, global recognition, fellowship, scientific integrity, publishing pressure, reform, quality control
Every medical student has heard the saying: publish or perish. It looms over us like a sword, an unspoken rule that to stay relevant in academia, you must keep feeding the publishing machine. But what that pressure looks like varies depending on where in the world you are.
In the United States, the path to tenure and promotion is lined with journal articles. Professors are evaluated not only by their publication volume but also by where they publish, as the “impact factor” of journals often becomes a quick measure of worth [1]. For a young researcher, this can feel like running a marathon while being judged by the brand of shoes they wear.
In Asia, the competition is even fiercer. China, in its effort for global recognition, linked promotions and even cash bonuses to international publications. This resulted in the emergence of “paper mills”—factories that produce fake research articles for a fee. The government has since cracked down, but the impacts are still felt [2,3]. India faced its struggle. For years, faculty promotions depended on publications in “approved” journals, which encouraged the growth of predatory publisher journals that accept nearly anything for a fee. The University Grants Commission attempted to counter this with the UGC-CARE list, but debates over quality control continue to rage [4,5].
Europe tells a different story. There, whispers of reform are turning into action. Funders are experimenting with narrative CVs, where instead of tallying papers, researchers explain their contributions: mentoring students, building collaborations, sharing data [6]. It’s less about “how many papers” and more about “what difference did it make?” Meanwhile, policies like Plan S push for open access, making all publicly funded research free for anyone to read, so discoveries don’t get locked behind paywalls [7].
But beneath all these systems lie the same human stories. A PhD student staring at a blank Word document at 3 a.m., fuelled by instant coffee. A young doctor rushing to publish before fellowship applications, their mental health fraying at the edges. Surveys consistently show burnout, anxiety, and even depression linked to these pressures [8,9].
So, what should change? Perhaps we need to rethink the metaphor. Publishing shouldn’t be a rat race where speed matters more than truth. It should be more like a relay, where ideas are passed carefully, built upon, and carried further together. Europe’s experiments with narrative CVs and open access are first steps, but real change will come only when collaboration, innovation, and mentorship carry the same weight as the number of lines in a CV [10].
As students, we don’t dream of becoming factories for citations, for we dream of discoveries that matter, patients who benefit, and stories worth telling. If academia listens closely, perhaps we won’t have to “perish” to publish.
References:
1. McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Nieves CM, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. eLife. 2019;8:e47338.
2. Nature. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature. 2021.
3. Christopher J. The raw truth about paper mills. FEBS Lett. 2021;595(11):1757-60.
4. Times Higher Education. End to approved journal list ‘blow’ to Indian research quality. 2025.
5. Times of India. Reform or risk? UGC’s decision to scrap CARE list draws mixed reactions. 2025.
6. Royal Society. Résumé for Researchers (R4R). 2024.
7. cOAlition S. Plan S: Making full and immediate Open Access a reality. 2021–2025.
8. Wellcome Trust. What researchers think about the culture they work in. 2020.
9. Nature. The mental health of PhD researchers demands urgent attention. Nature. 2019.
10. DORA & HHMI. Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible. eLife. 2020;9:e58654.
11. Image references: AI generated
