This problem has been around for a LONG time. My father got his PhD in 1957 and taught college. He saw the sins of Publish Or Perish immediately, and wrote a parody using a grocery store metaphor. His parody was published in an obscure journal. He never wrote anything else. Eventually his stubbornness cost him a tenure-track job, so he downscaled to a small Christian college where he could simply teach.
I listened to his advice in 1957 and eventually got into technical work, not professoring.
Wow, that would be really interesting if you could find his grocery store metaphor and share! It would be interesting to see how the modern take on this issue compares to attitudes >60 years back, and perhaps how little has changed in the system.
Back then, getting an article published in a journal required a different type of time and effort than it does now. No computers for easy drafting. No e-mail for easy sharing with collaborators. No MS Excel for quick number crunching and figure production. No electronic submissions, allowing somebody to submit, get a paper rejected, and resubmit 3 times in one week. The list goes on! Yet, it still sounds like there were concerns about the system back then, before it reached the speed and volume that is has today!
This analogy was great and I lost it at "it will look good on my resume." The things we tell ourselves to make it through are really something ha articles like this really help bring awareness to the public because otherwise just explaining the system sounds outright crazy. Nice work!
That’s the tricky part — those of us in academia are trapped inside a system we recognize as flawed, but still rely on for career advancement. Many scholars now see the problem, but the incentives still push us to support the very publishing companies we might otherwise want to reject.
Sure, we could avoid the big commercial publishers — but tenure and promotion are often tied to where you publish, not just what you publish. Landing a paper in a high-prestige journal like Nature (which charges sky-high fees for both open access and subscriptions) is a huge boost for one’s career. Publishing in a nonprofit, open-access journal with a higher acceptance rate — like PLOS ONE — is more equitable, but doesn’t carry the same prestige.
So solving this problem (or at least one component of it) isn’t just about switching platforms. It’s about redefining how we measure research impact and prestige — and that’s a much slower, more cultural shift.
Hilarious and so on point. My greatest regret at having completed graduate school was the loss of my library privileges that allowed me to read any journal article. I often thought that Universities could make back some of the monies spent by offering grads access to library privileges at a few hundred a year.
Yeah, that is the huge advantage of academia, access to the library. I always heard university librarians talk about how the library is the heart of the university, but I didn't fully understnad what they meant until I became a researcher... Journal access is precious!
Back in the pre-PDF era, I think libraries tried to make back some of their subscription money through selling copy cards :)
Humor and metaphor might help to bring this into the conversation. Thank you for your ongoing work!
I was sharing a few of your articles with a young person and a nearby adult had a strong reaction, as if I was talking about another conspiracy. Surprisingly, that person knew I had been in research and witnessed the mess. Resistance is real.
The story sounds almost conspiratorial — but it’s not. This is just the culture we’ve inherited. Most researchers know the drill: we do peer review for free because it’s expected, and because it’s a vital part of maintaining scientific integrity. And truthfully, many of us are happy to volunteer our time for the greater good.
But the problem starts when for-profit publishers take that volunteer labor, package it, and sell it back — not only to the very institutions that employ us, but also to the public, who helped fund the research in the first place.
That’s when we need to pause and ask: “Wait… how is this okay?”
Yes. I read a book by a credible author who pointed to some elite academic journals that have little rigor on who peer reviews, except being “known” and part of a certain community. I am curious if you have any experience with this.
There are some journals where, almost without fail, I get excellent, thorough peer reviews. Others are more hit-or-miss: I can usually count on at least one strong reviewer, and then 1–2 more whose feedback might be variable in depth or relevance.
A lot depends on the editor handling the manuscript and the reviewers they invite — and even then, the same reviewer might give wildly different levels of feedback depending on timing. If someone agrees to review a paper and then realizes three weeks later that the deadline has passed, they may rush it. Life happens. There’s no standardized expectation for what “a good review” even looks like.
One larger trend I’m seeing (and personally feeling) is that more academics are saying no to reviewing for for-profit journals. There’s growing awareness that we’re providing unpaid labor for companies that not only profit from our work, but also restrict access to it.
That leads to a real squeeze:
- More journals (publishers want volume),
- More articles (no page limits in digital publishing),
- But fewer reviewers willing or able to donate their time.
So editors end up digging deeper into their lists and assigning reviewers who may not be the best fit, or who are stretched too thin to offer meaningful feedback. It’s not necessarily corruption — it’s burnout, inertia, and a misaligned system.
Thank you. That is helpful to understand different sides of the situation.
My sense is that first the problems need to be recognized by more than a few. Perhaps then a collective desire can emerge to create a more viable and equitable system that serves the principle of scientific progress rather than profit or tolerance in the name of pure survival.
The system has several flaws, many are due to the issues you identify (burnout, inertia, misaligned system). There’s no easy answer, but I appreciate being able to discuss the matter. Maybe a new vision can emerge. Thanks again for your work!
Yes - people need to know about how the system works, and why reform is needed. Patients, clinicians, journalists, etc. have to pay just to access information that they have already helped fund. It's pretty crazy when you think about it.
Very important topic that needs attention! NEJM will now replace the reviewers with AI, which might be considered digging their own grave: the most important reason why top journals are considered the most trust worthy is their thorough review process by peers. If we replace the peers with AI (which is reasonable), why would we even need journals. The future might consist of complete open access, with an AI-based scoring system for manuscripts, and an AI-based search engine to find what we need.
This problem has been around for a LONG time. My father got his PhD in 1957 and taught college. He saw the sins of Publish Or Perish immediately, and wrote a parody using a grocery store metaphor. His parody was published in an obscure journal. He never wrote anything else. Eventually his stubbornness cost him a tenure-track job, so he downscaled to a small Christian college where he could simply teach.
I listened to his advice in 1957 and eventually got into technical work, not professoring.
I don't regret the decision!
Wow, that would be really interesting if you could find his grocery store metaphor and share! It would be interesting to see how the modern take on this issue compares to attitudes >60 years back, and perhaps how little has changed in the system.
Back then, getting an article published in a journal required a different type of time and effort than it does now. No computers for easy drafting. No e-mail for easy sharing with collaborators. No MS Excel for quick number crunching and figure production. No electronic submissions, allowing somebody to submit, get a paper rejected, and resubmit 3 times in one week. The list goes on! Yet, it still sounds like there were concerns about the system back then, before it reached the speed and volume that is has today!
Thanks for sharing!
This analogy was great and I lost it at "it will look good on my resume." The things we tell ourselves to make it through are really something ha articles like this really help bring awareness to the public because otherwise just explaining the system sounds outright crazy. Nice work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
That’s the tricky part — those of us in academia are trapped inside a system we recognize as flawed, but still rely on for career advancement. Many scholars now see the problem, but the incentives still push us to support the very publishing companies we might otherwise want to reject.
Sure, we could avoid the big commercial publishers — but tenure and promotion are often tied to where you publish, not just what you publish. Landing a paper in a high-prestige journal like Nature (which charges sky-high fees for both open access and subscriptions) is a huge boost for one’s career. Publishing in a nonprofit, open-access journal with a higher acceptance rate — like PLOS ONE — is more equitable, but doesn’t carry the same prestige.
So solving this problem (or at least one component of it) isn’t just about switching platforms. It’s about redefining how we measure research impact and prestige — and that’s a much slower, more cultural shift.
Hilarious and so on point. My greatest regret at having completed graduate school was the loss of my library privileges that allowed me to read any journal article. I often thought that Universities could make back some of the monies spent by offering grads access to library privileges at a few hundred a year.
Thanks!
Yeah, that is the huge advantage of academia, access to the library. I always heard university librarians talk about how the library is the heart of the university, but I didn't fully understnad what they meant until I became a researcher... Journal access is precious!
Back in the pre-PDF era, I think libraries tried to make back some of their subscription money through selling copy cards :)
If this system had been in place in early 1900's Europe, it is highly likely nobody today would have a clue who Albert Einstein was.
If Henry Ford has used this system to bring "affordable Fords" to market, the model T would likely have never left the drawing board.
If real baked goodswere sold this way, a lot of us would be a lot skinnier -- and maybe healthier?
Humor and metaphor might help to bring this into the conversation. Thank you for your ongoing work!
I was sharing a few of your articles with a young person and a nearby adult had a strong reaction, as if I was talking about another conspiracy. Surprisingly, that person knew I had been in research and witnessed the mess. Resistance is real.
Thanks for sharing it!
The story sounds almost conspiratorial — but it’s not. This is just the culture we’ve inherited. Most researchers know the drill: we do peer review for free because it’s expected, and because it’s a vital part of maintaining scientific integrity. And truthfully, many of us are happy to volunteer our time for the greater good.
But the problem starts when for-profit publishers take that volunteer labor, package it, and sell it back — not only to the very institutions that employ us, but also to the public, who helped fund the research in the first place.
That’s when we need to pause and ask: “Wait… how is this okay?”
Yes. I read a book by a credible author who pointed to some elite academic journals that have little rigor on who peer reviews, except being “known” and part of a certain community. I am curious if you have any experience with this.
I’d say it’s a bit of a crapshoot.
There are some journals where, almost without fail, I get excellent, thorough peer reviews. Others are more hit-or-miss: I can usually count on at least one strong reviewer, and then 1–2 more whose feedback might be variable in depth or relevance.
A lot depends on the editor handling the manuscript and the reviewers they invite — and even then, the same reviewer might give wildly different levels of feedback depending on timing. If someone agrees to review a paper and then realizes three weeks later that the deadline has passed, they may rush it. Life happens. There’s no standardized expectation for what “a good review” even looks like.
One larger trend I’m seeing (and personally feeling) is that more academics are saying no to reviewing for for-profit journals. There’s growing awareness that we’re providing unpaid labor for companies that not only profit from our work, but also restrict access to it.
That leads to a real squeeze:
- More journals (publishers want volume),
- More articles (no page limits in digital publishing),
- But fewer reviewers willing or able to donate their time.
So editors end up digging deeper into their lists and assigning reviewers who may not be the best fit, or who are stretched too thin to offer meaningful feedback. It’s not necessarily corruption — it’s burnout, inertia, and a misaligned system.
Thank you. That is helpful to understand different sides of the situation.
My sense is that first the problems need to be recognized by more than a few. Perhaps then a collective desire can emerge to create a more viable and equitable system that serves the principle of scientific progress rather than profit or tolerance in the name of pure survival.
The system has several flaws, many are due to the issues you identify (burnout, inertia, misaligned system). There’s no easy answer, but I appreciate being able to discuss the matter. Maybe a new vision can emerge. Thanks again for your work!
Fantastic article and tragically comic take on the situation. Will share in my academic networks!
Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for sharing!
Experienced it twice this morning. Very frustrating. Thanks for writing about this.
Yes - people need to know about how the system works, and why reform is needed. Patients, clinicians, journalists, etc. have to pay just to access information that they have already helped fund. It's pretty crazy when you think about it.
Very important topic that needs attention! NEJM will now replace the reviewers with AI, which might be considered digging their own grave: the most important reason why top journals are considered the most trust worthy is their thorough review process by peers. If we replace the peers with AI (which is reasonable), why would we even need journals. The future might consist of complete open access, with an AI-based scoring system for manuscripts, and an AI-based search engine to find what we need.
Spinger's Natural Pub 😂
Before I made cuts to my overly long analogy, the original version also included a number of other food halls:
- The Sage Hall
- Taylor’s French Café
- I’ll Serve You, Yay! (just pronounce it and think about a major publisher)
Not to mention the PubBake database...