In 1665, science was transformed not by a new instrument or discovery, but by the printing press. With the launch of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, scientists transitioned from secrecy to openness. What emerged was more than just a journal. It was a system that still defines scientific publishing today: establishing priority, certifying quality, disseminating results, and accumulating knowledge.
Publishing as a tool of Collective Progress
At its core, publishing enables collective progress. Scientific articles form the foundation on which others build. They make methods transparent, allow results to be scrutinized and reproduced, and enable knowledge to accumulate over time. An idea only truly becomes part of science once it enters this shared, critical space. Publishing marks the transition from private insight to collective knowledge, sustaining the self-correcting and cumulative nature of science. In this way, scientific publishing plays an absolute essential role in collective progress, a success we all benefit from greatly.
Publishing as a Currency of Academic Merit
However, publishing serves a second function. It is a currency of scientific productivity and quality. Careers, funding decisions, and institutional reputations depend on publication records, authorship positions, journal prestige, or the number of citations. While many academic institutions and funders have formally moved toward more diversified assessment frameworks, including refined bibliometric indicators, societal impact measures, and narrative evaluations, the implicit value of publication records and journal reputation continues to strongly shape perceptions of individual researchers and their institutions. This role, as a currency of academic merit, assigns value and, consequently, has unintended side-effects. As a relevant measure of productivity, scientific publishing has grown into a multimillion-article ecosystem, making it progressively harder to distinguish meaningful advances from background noise. Also, the presence of an exploiting multibillion-euro oligopoly of publishers, which diverts enormous funds away from the primary process of doing science, simply reflects the value that publications have in formal and informal evaluations. Finally, questionable research practices and, in some cases, outright misconduct again demonstrate the value placed on publications and how this value is aimed to be increased through sloppy science or fraud.
Serving Two Needs: Knowledge and Assessment
Publishing is essential to the accumulation of knowledge, but science also requires methods to allocate limited resources and guarantee accountability for public expenditures. The two functions of scientific publishing do not always operate independently. For example, articles published in highly reputable journals tend to receive greater visibility and attention, thereby amplifying their influence on subsequent research. Thus, considering publications does more than measure academic merit; it actively shapes how knowledge accumulates, potentially in an efficient manner.
Where Do We Go from Here?
As long as publications are used to measure scientific productivity and quality, I am convinced that growth in publication volume, horrendous publication costs, and pressures on research integrity are unlikely to diminish. In fact, I expect the opposite will happen.
This leaves us with a choice rather than a simple problem to solve. We can refine the current system by improving metrics, increasing transparency, and mitigating undesirable side effects, while acknowledging that some of these effects are inevitable. Alternatively, we can explore fundamental changes in how we assess research quality and contribution. This path is far less defined and may reintroduce subjectivity in forms that were intended to be avoided when introducing and further developing objective bibliometric measures.
I would love to hear how others envision this situation. Should we work within the current system, or is it time to rethink it entirely? Either way, what are the crucial steps to take, in your opinion?
- Guillén Fernández
Disclaimer: This contribution reflects personal perspective and is intended to stimulate discussion; it does not represent a formally approved position or announcement of the Radboudumc.