# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frequent publication is one of the few powerful methods at scholar's disposal to demonstrate academic talent to peers. Successful publication of research brings attention to scholars and their institutions. This in turn may bring in more funding for the institute and also ensure an individual's progress through their field. Academic institutions and university frequently use the number of publication to an individual's credit as the measure of competency. Administrators are increasingly using this as the criteria during recruitments. Scholars, who publish infrequently or who focus on activities that does not result in publications like instructing undergraduates, may find themselves out of contentions for many teaching positions. It is due to these reasons that there is an immense pressure to publish. The phrase "Publish or perish" initially coined by Coolidge[ 1] in 1932 is now becoming a harsh reality.

The emphasis on publishing has decreased the value of the resulting scholarship as scholar must spend time scrambling to publish whatever they can manage, rather than spend time developing significant research agenda. The pressure to publish-or-perish also detracts from the time and effort professors can devote to teaching undergraduate and post-graduates. The rewards for exceptional teaching rarely match the rewards for exceptional research, which encourages faculty to favor the latter whenever they conflict. Many universities do not focus on teaching ability when they hire new faculty and simply look at the publications list.[ 2] This single-minded focus on the professor-as-researcher may cause faculty to neglect or be unable to perform some other responsibilities.

This pressure to increase the number of publications has led to unethical practices and waste full research. The increase in the number of publications has led to the growth of many new journals. In 2006 alone, approximately 1.3 million peer reviewed scientific articles were published, aided by a large rise in the number of available scientific journals from 16,000 in 2001 to 23,750 by 2006.[ 3] The increasing scientific articles have fuelled the demand for new journal. There is a ridiculous proliferation of scientific journals of all kind. Every other day we see a new journal cropping up. So the question arises, are we heading in the right direction? The acceptance and appreciation of a publication is frequently gauged by citation index. Only 45% of the articles published in 4500 top scientific journals are cited within the first 5 years of publication, a figure which appears to be dropping steadily.[ 4] Only 42% of the papers receive more than one citation, 5-25% of these are self-citation by the authors or journals.[ 5] Majority of the publications still goes uncited. This means that neither they are appreciated by the peers nor they are of any importance to the industry or patient. Research is essential to carry science forward. It importance in improving patient care cannot be denied. However, equally important is the fact that the research done actually benefits patient, physician and community at large. Most of the published research works are done just to improve the curriculum vitae (CV) of the researcher and they do not find any merit in practical terms. A thought must be spared by the researchers for the quality of research being carried out. "Publish or perish" is now becoming the way of life. It is race to get more and more publications to one's credit. The current trend is forcing scientists to create publishable research. This is giving rise to fraudulent researches. Fraud research may corrupt scientific medical literature and ultimately harm our patients.

The increasing number of publication have led to rise in unethical practices, dubious research practices such as salami slicing, plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, ghost authors etc. Fraud is defined as fabrication or falsification in performing or reporting research results. No one could forget the famous fraud of Piltdown man. In this forgery, the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully modern man and touted as the discovery of the missing link postulated as the intermediary in the evolution of hominids from apes. The skull was found in a gravel pit at Piltdown in England by Charles Dawson in 1912. It was only in 1953, almost 40 years later, that it was exposed as a forgery.[ 6]

Another type of unethical practice is salami slicing. In Salami slicing, same research is split into many fragments and published. Some researches counter this by saying that sometimes the research are too big that they have to be split, so as to publish it in a single article.[ 7] Another dubious practice is of duplicate publication. In this researchers publish the same material in different journal with different key words, captions and co-author variation on each occasion, thus making it difficult for plagiarism software to detect them. This is mostly done in order to give a boost to their CV. Recently I myself encountered a manuscript sent for review by Oman Medical Journal. Reading the manuscript produced the feeling of déjà vu. A search on the internet revealed that the authors already published the manuscript in journal of research in medical sciences.[ 8] The reviewers have very important job in ensuring that such fraudulent behavior is detected. The editorial board has so many articles to look at one moment, and they rely heavily on their reviewers on this issue. If published, subsequent retraction of these fraudulent articles by the journal is costly for the journal and also puts a dent in the reputation of the journal. The journals should ensure that such authors are debarred from publishing in the scientific journals for a certain period of time. In the west, such retractions may lead to loss of job of the individual and may also be barred from receiving federal receiving research funds. It is high time that we follow the example of west and modify over rules for publication frauds. The basic ethical principles of every scientist are intellectual honesty, which must be present in all stages of scientific work: From a hypothesis, through the appropriate choice of research methodology, analysis and interpretation of the results, including their publication.[ 9, 10]

It is frequent to find that the head of departments and senior professors are producing a dozen publications in a year. This means that the person have conceived idea, submitted protocol, got Institutional review board clearance, done the research, wrote the paper and published it every month. It is virtually impossible for a human being to do this. Being a professor/consultant sometimes automatically implies that whatever papers goes for publication from their department will bear their name. But this is unethical practice and should be discouraged at all levels. As International Committee of Medical Journal editors and Journal of Research in Medical Sciences authorship criteria states that "each authors must contribute a significant segment for being eligible for authorship." They may find it difficult to swallow but being a consultant or professor does not give them a right to become an author, if they have not contributed in the research.

There are so many other types of fraud, too numerous to be discussed in this editorial. The frequency with which such unethical practices and fraud are occurring is increasing and poses a threat to reputation of scientific community at large.

In conclusion, publication is a fact of life and vital to growth of science and career progression. Administrators and universities increasingly look at the publications to one's credit during recruitment of faculty/researchers. This has led to a relentless pressure to publish at all costs in order to increase the number of publications on one's CV. This not only led to an increase of low quality publications but also led to increase in unethical practices and publication fraud is also showing an increasing trend. Urgent steps are necessary to stop this phenomenon. There should be more dominant attitude toward medical education rather that research and publication thirst, especially in third world countries. It is true that publications are a stepping stone for one's carrier, but is should not be done at the expense of medical education of your students. Universities may state that teaching is the most important category on which tenure and recruitment is based, but the truth is that we cannot measure it. We are very adept, however at measuring publications so insufficient publications is almost always the reason that someone is denied tenure. Publishing has now become not just optional but obligatory. In consequence, scientists suffer constant pressure to publish new work frequently and spend considerable time writing papers. Universities and administrators should curb these practices. Equal importance should be given to education of students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Publish or perish: Where are we heading?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frequent publication is one of the few powerful methods at scholar's disposal to demonstrate academic talent to peers. Successful publication of research brings attention to scholars and their institutions. This in turn may bring in more funding for the institute and also ensure an individual's progress through their field.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The relentless pressure for researchers to get their work into journals, or face consequences for their careers, is one of the biggest concerns in academia and has been blamed for robbing scholars of the time to conceive profound, transformative ideas.

Last year, for example, the Wellcome Trust announced that it would fund longer-term projects to offset this pressure: the "model of chasing the next paper in the next journal" was constricting scientists' ability to "dream", said Jeremy Farrar, the trust's director.

But pitting research quantity against quality in this way is based on a misconception of how academics come up with good ideas, according to an expert on research productivity who has discovered that more prolific academics often actually write more influential papers - a finding that he believes has implications for how academics are assessed and funded.

Ulf Sandström, a guest professor of science and technology studies at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, looked at the publishing records of 48,000 researchers based in Sweden and found that in most subjects, the proportion of high-quality articles - as measured by citations - held steady or even improved as they published more papers. Only in the humanities did it drop off.

He said that he "cannot understand" fears about a pressure to publish in academia because there was "no evidence" that publishing more papers leads to poorer quality research.

Instead, there is a virtuous circle between publishing papers and their having an impact, he argued. "From creativity and psychology analysis, we know that you can't do the right thing first time. You need to do a lot of trials to have something that is really interesting," he said. "The more you try, the more you know."

The notion that researchers needed long periods of time to "sit and think and think and think" without publishing anything in order to conceive a groundbreaking idea was a false view of the scientific process, Professor Sandström said. Researchers generally do lots of work in one scientific paradigm before coming up with atypical ideas, he argued.

Prolific researchers were also better known in their networks, and more embedded and organised, meaning that peers were more likely to cite them, he added.

Successful scientists also accrued more postdoctoral students, which allowed them to conduct more research, he explained. But Professor Sandström added that his analysis had ruled out the possibility that prolific, highly cited authors were simply senior researchers leveraging their power to add their names on to the work of others.

Professor Sandström's co-authored paper, "Quantity and/or quality? The importance of publishing many papers", published in Plos One, argues that the results have implications for research policy - specifically, assessment exercises that limit the number of papers an academic can present.

The UK's research excellence framework was one "very strange" example of this, he said, because it caps the number of papers that researchers can submit (four in 2014), meaning that researchers with many more publications to their name were not rewarded.

"Productivity is a very important aspect of research," he said.
david.matthews@tesglobal.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academics who publish frequently 'have more highly cited articles'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The relentless pressure for researchers to get their work into journals, or face consequences for their careers, is one of the biggest concerns in academia and has been blamed for robbing scholars of the time to conceive profound, transformative ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do universities generate banal, wasteful research through the relentless focus on publications as a performance indicator? It's a question I began asking myself while working in a research unit that specialised in social care. A seminar by a visiting researcher confirmed my suspicions.

The researcher had received local public funding in a town where welfare agencies were worried about 16- and 17-year-olds dabbling with drugs. The agencies wanted the research to help them understand how peer group influences were affecting such risky behaviour. At the seminar, the researcher described how he designed research based on academic sociology literature on risk among young people. This approach ignored the reason why he had been granted funding in the first place: he didn't even interview any young substance abusers in the local area.

Instead, the researcher used a definition of risky behaviour that matched that in other risk papers in the journals where he was hoping to publish. This included topics as different from drugs as jumping from roofs of houses. His interviewees' age-range spanned 12 to 24 years - not the age-group that had aroused local concern. Potentially useful research targeting a live, important problem was replaced with a study that was aimed primarily at being selected for publication by prestigious journals.

This example made me reflect on something similar happening in my research team, albeit in subtler ways. Research was conducted with such an eye to the advancement of the research unit or the researchers' careers that its whole purpose was compromised.

For instance, my supervisor told me to delete certain details from a report to the government department that was funding my research. She asked that any explicitly tentative interpretations be removed, in case uncertainty would be perceived as a shortcoming by an academic referee in the research excellence framework funding distribution exercise. She also warned that certain words could have associations for the referees, which would lead them to mark down the research for failing to cover those associated areas - better not to mention them at all.

Steadily the report was shorn of the information needed to make it useful. And thus the government could pay many tens of thousands of taxpayers' pounds, yet end up with a bland, deliberately incommunicative report, crafted to be hard for academic referees to criticise.

In our unit, reporting an original research finding also sometimes encounters resistance by supervisors. While original findings can be very attractive to journals, they also risk rejection. A journal's natural first choice for the referees, who advise on acceptance of a paper, are the current authorities on a topic. How might these treat findings at variance with their own? Offering journal referees familiar findings is the cautious strategy for getting work published.

One colleague joked how a smart researcher would always choose thoroughly hackneyed designs for their research, adding a tiny, inconsequential, new twist each time. This way your findings would always be accepted, she said, because everyone knew what they should be. While I did obtain permission to report some original findings, if you want an easier academic life, you typically write what other people had written.

There's a low risk of new findings, though, if you follow my last supervisor's time-saving dictum on analysing research results. Before you start analysis, she said, decide on suitably prestigious journals to target and then formulate the subjects of papers based on those that would suit them. Maybe this tactic had helped her net a vast publications list, but in terms of generating opportunities for useful discovery - what a waste!

In some university departments, the path to worthwhile, interesting research runs in the opposite direction to the route to an enduring research career - as I found to my cost. In my experience, interesting, useful research comes quite easily, if you address issues that matter in the real world, not the journal world, and respond to unexpected information. But so much in universities is pushing people to target performance indicators instead. This is easiest done through hackneyed, inconsequential, self-serving work, which ultimately short-changes research funders. Work like this for long enough and you'll lose the ability to work any other way. Or to see anything wrong with the tactics I've mentioned.

Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at highereducationnetwork@theguardian.com. Looking for a higher education job? Or perhaps you need to recruit university staff? Take a look at Guardian Jobs, the higher education specialist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pressure to publish in journals drives too much cookie-cutter research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do universities generate banal, wasteful research through the relentless focus on publications as a performance indicator? It's a question I began asking myself while working in a research unit that specialised in social care. A seminar by a visiting researcher confirmed my suspicions.

# data[].attributes.body
relentless pressure
a big concern

high quality articles
virtuous circle
prolific researchers

The notion that...