Publish or Perish: The Dark Side of Academia no one warns you about

Let me remain skeptical of anything that must be accepted simply because scientists back it.

My experience, much like that of many others, has taught me that most of us end up trapped in a specialization that rarely pursues pure knowledge. Instead, it adapts to the mold imposed by scientific publishers — a mold designed to ensure you can publish and avoid perishing on the long, winding path of a research career.

That is why I approach statements made by scientists of this generation with the same caution I would reserve for an anesthesiologist trying to give advice on oncology, merely on the grounds of being a medical doctor. In my field, any experienced farmer could offer more valuable lessons about the land than the most cited university professor.

And let there be no misunderstanding: publishing results is, without a doubt, necessary for science to advance. What I am denouncing here is that the system itself has become corrupted. It has evolved into a machine designed to enrich publishers, widen the gap between senior and junior researchers, and feed a power structure that has very little to do with scientific vocation. Why? 

Because far from being spaces of discovery and knowledge creation, universities and public research centers have morphed into academic production factories, where performance indicators have replaced critical thinking, creativity, and true scientific value. In essence, the system has turned into a pyramid that resembles a classic scam more than it does a genuine engine of progress.

From the outside, it might seem like there is a natural hierarchical structure in place, one where the advances made by young researchers are built upon the accumulated knowledge of their more experienced peers, creating a solid foundation for future discoveries and scientific progress. But reality is far less idealistic.

On one hand, you have those just starting their research journey — a path that appears as a faint silhouette on the horizon, riddled with uncertainty and instability, and which is shaped not by what they can contribute to knowledge, but by their ability to publish.

Within this group, you typically find two types of profiles: those who, despite their efforts and desire, are unable to publish due to a lack of support from senior researchers — who are already comfortably settled in their tenured positions and face no real pressure — and those who do manage to get published, largely because they are systematically included as co-authors. Often, this inclusion is less about genuine scientific collaboration and more about maintaining control and promotion within the academic hierarchy.

This is how, among junior researchers eager for visibility and recognition, some manage to appear in numerous articles, creating the illusion of significant scientific productivity — an illusion that rarely reflects the deep understanding they should have gained. More often than not, they work on poorly designed, superficial projects, lacking the necessary time or training to truly master their field.

Meanwhile, others — despite their ability and knowledge — find their progress blocked by the negligence or indifference of their comfortably positioned supervisors.

And so the cycle perpetuates itself: junior researchers need senior researchers to publish, and senior researchers need to multiply their publications and citations to maintain their status and privileges. Anyone who fails to grasp this dynamic early on is swiftly pushed out of the game.

This brings us to the real heart of the problem: the senior academics perched at the top of this pyramid are not passive figures, nor are they benevolent mentors paving the way for the new generation. They are, in fact, the architects of a system that secures them a wealth of strategic benefits. Their control over the research ecosystem guarantees them privileges that extend far beyond scientific output alone.

More and more young researchers are entering this production circuit without the necessary training or maturity. The pressure to publish has created a culture of rushed studies, weak methodologies, and trivial conclusions. Science has shifted away from being a rigorous search for knowledge and turned into a kind of academic assembly line, where the main priority is not to discover but to meet quotas — in a process that more closely resembles the workings of a publishing house than that of an institution devoted to knowledge.

I must emphasize that this situation is particularly severe in the public sector. In the private sector, by contrast, the need for tangible results in order to survive and thrive forces collaboration with companies and demands a focus on real-world applicability. Over time, this often translates into genuine scientific and technological breakthroughs. In Spain specifically, where the line between cunning opportunism and outright fraud is notoriously thin, public research is no exception to these dynamics.

And what’s the solution? The problem is complex and cannot be solved by a single formula, but it can certainly be addressed through small, steady steps toward both cultural and structural change.

To begin with, we must stop measuring scientific value by the sheer number of publications and start prioritizing quality, depth, and reproducibility. Reforming the evaluation systems for researchers and projects is urgent. Numerical criteria (like the number of papers or journal impact factors) should be replaced by assessments grounded in methodological robustness, originality, and the real utility of the research. Science should reward those who contribute meaningfully, not those who publish the most.

Breaking the vicious cycle of forced co-authorship is also essential. Authorship should be limited to those who have genuinely contributed intellectually, and all listed authors must be held equally accountable — restoring ethical value to scientific work. And, of course, democratizing access to knowledge is imperative: science must be freed from the grip of profit-driven publishers and must embrace open and sustainable publication models. Science needs fewer metrics and more critical thinking. Fewer pyramids, and more real collaboration networks.

And above all, it needs to once again place at its core what should have never been lost: the honest pursuit of answers.

Evolution of the Academy