Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 617–619 | Cite as

The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But the Publish-or-Perish Culture

  • Gonzalo GénovaEmail author
  • José Luis de la Vara
Commentary

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.

Keywords

Science publishing Publish-or-perish Peer-review 

References

  1. Agoramoorthy, G. (2017). Time for revelation: Unmasking the anonymity of blind reviewers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 313–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Génova, G., Astudillo, H., & Fraga, A. (2016). The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Moustafa, K. (2015). Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 535–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidad Carlos III de MadridLeganésSpain

Personalised recommendations