Abstract
The publication of scientific papers has become increasingly problematic in the last decades. Even if we agree that a renewed model is needed for peer-reviewed scientific publication, we think the problem does not essentially lie in professional publishing—with economic incentives—but in the publish-or-perish culture that dominates the lives of researchers and academics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A traditional saying, quoted from the Christian Bible, First Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy, 5:18.
References
Agoramoorthy, G. (2017). Time for revelation: Unmasking the anonymity of blind reviewers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 313–315.
Fernandez-Patron, C., & Hardy, E. (2017). A new science publishing system for a budding science publishing crisis. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9902-6.
Génova, G., Astudillo, H., & Fraga, A. (2016). The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 227–235.
Moustafa, K. (2015). Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 535–539.
Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Génova, G., de la Vara, J.L. The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But the Publish-or-Perish Culture. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 617–619 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0015-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0015-z