From ‘publish or perish’ to ‘publish for purpose’

• Published date: 01 December 2023
• Author: Said Elbanna,John Child
• Date: 01 December 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12618

VIEWPOINT

From ‘publish or perish’to ‘publish for purpose’

Said Elbanna

1

| John Child

2

1

Center for Entrepreneurship & Organizational

Excellence, College of Business & Economics,

Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

2

Birmingham Business School, University of

Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Correspondence

Said Elbanna, Center for Entrepreneurship &

Organizational Excellence, College of

Business & Economics, Qatar University,

Doha, Qatar.

Email: selbanna@qu.edu.qa

Abstract

Pressures to publish prolifically have led to an abundance of research on trivial

matters rather than on issues of significance. This trend is particularly pronounced

in developing countries, where limited access to paid content has fueled the

growth of open-access publications. Additionally, the prevailing “publish or per-

ish”culture has encouraged the pursuit of inconsequential and conformist

research. The scholarly integrity of academic institutions is eroded when they

struggle with evaluating research impact through metrics, potentially overlooking

substantive contribution. The emergence of AI technology adds a fresh dimension

to the issue, creating new possibilities for mass output rather than work that is

innovative or informed by social values and priorities. This commentary serves as

a call to action for scholars, institutions, and policymakers collectively to reshape

the trajectory of academic publishing, restoring its sense of purpose through mak-

ing lasting contributions to the betterment of society.

KEYWORDS

publish for purpose, publish or perish, rebalance academic publishing, research ethics, societal impact

THE PROBLEM

The process of producing quality academic research is

challenging and meticulous. Yet, a disconcerting trend of

treating research as a mass production process devoted to

the rapid publication of articles on relatively trivial issues

is currently sweeping across academia (Chalmers

et al., 2014). In some universities, pressures are mounting

for social scientists to publish several articles each and

for natural scientists to produce a new paper almost every

month, or even more frequently (Chen, 2015).

Pressure to produce an excessively large volume of

publications encourages conceptual hairsplitting and the

reporting of inconsequential findings rather than an inno-

vative synthesis of knowledge and theoretical develop-

ment. As the editors of this journal have noted, there is

too often “a rediscovery or relabeling of aspects of the

known”(Grandori & Morley, 2022, p. 4). This observa-

tion is consistent with findings from a study by Foster

et al. (2015), which showed that scientists often navigate

a tension between convention and innovation in their

research strategies. These authors’analysis of millions of

biomedical abstracts revealed that despite the higher

potential impact of innovative research, its associated

risks such as the failing to get published lead many

researchers to focus on established, conservative knowl-

edge. This propensity toward “safe”research encourages

conformist thinking rather than innovation.

Nevertheless, the principle of quality over quantity is

presently under siege due to the rise in mass production

practices, especially in rapidly developing countries

(Elbanna et al., 2020). A proliferation of open access

publications has been especially pronounced in sub-

Saharan Africa (Iyandemye & Thomas, 2019). Iyande-

mye and Thomas argue that contrary to the presumption

that research from more affluent countries might domi-

nate academic publications, authors from less developed

regions are motivated to disseminate their work broadly.

This drive emerges from their struggle to access paid aca-

demic content.

The excessive emphasis on publication statistics

encourages the culture of publish or perish. Recently, the

Review of Higher Education, a renowned academic jour-

nal, temporarily halted submissions due to a 2-year back-

log of articles awaiting review or publication. This move

ignited a fervent discussion on Twitter and triggered an

intense debate among scholars concerning the trajectory

The authors wish to express sincere gratitude to the Editors-in-Chief, Professor

Anna Grandori and Professor Michael Morley, for their insightful feedback on a

preliminary version of this paper. Their invaluable contributions were

instrumental in strengthening its message.

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12618

614 © 2023 European Academy of Management (EURAM). European Management Review. 2023;20:614–618.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/emre