Indianapolis, Indiana – In a new study that is already stirring debate across academia, researchers from Indiana University and institutions around the world are pushing back against a system they say is warping the true mission of science. Their message is clear: the traditional academic publishing model is no longer working in the best interest of researchers, science, or society.
The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, takes a deep dive into what’s become known as the “publish or perish” culture—a phrase that, for many in the academic world, evokes an unrelenting pressure to produce a constant stream of published work to secure tenure, funding, and professional legitimacy. But behind this high-pressure environment lies a troubling misalignment between how science is evaluated and how it actually advances.
Titled “The Misalignment of Incentives in Academic Publishing and Implications for Journal Reform,” the study presents a damning assessment of the current publishing model. It argues that the existing system places disproportionate emphasis on publishing in prestigious journals, thereby incentivizing researchers to chase impact factors rather than focus on rigorous and meaningful work.
“Publishing should be about advancing knowledge, not gaming metrics,” said Jennifer Trueblood, the Ruth N. Halls Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Indiana University Bloomington and the study’s lead author. “The tension in the current system has real consequences for science, researchers, and the public.”
Trueblood is joined in this effort by a diverse team of IU scholars—Distinguished Professor David Allison, Associate Professor William Holmes, and Professor Mary Murphy—as well as co-authors from institutions across the U.S., Europe, and Israel. Together, they unpack the core issue at hand: the misalignment between career incentives and the true objectives of science.
At the heart of the problem is what the authors describe as a “prestige economy.” In this system, researchers often feel compelled to submit their work to journals with high reputations and wide readership—regardless of whether those journals are the best fit for the work itself. The perceived value of a publication is, more often than not, dictated by the status of the journal rather than the substance of the research.
This prestige-driven system is kept afloat by metrics that have become deeply embedded in the way academic careers are evaluated. “The major factors that influence tenure and promotion in science and many other academic disciplines are publications, citations, and grant funding,” the study explains. “These factors are interdependent, as the likelihood of obtaining grants is affected by one’s publication record, and the ability to publish is dependent on (among other things) getting one’s research funded.”
For early-career scientists especially, the pressure can be overwhelming. There is a growing concern that this environment drives researchers to prioritize quantity over quality—producing numerous small papers that boost their numbers instead of investing time and resources into large, meaningful projects.
But it’s not just about stress or burnout. The consequences of this system stretch far wider. The authors warn that the incentive structure may also be contributing to the ongoing “replication crisis” in science, where significant studies fail to hold up under repeated testing. The integrity and credibility of research can suffer when the focus is shifted from robust methodologies to flashy results designed to appeal to elite journals.
Another layer of complexity is added by the dominance of a few major commercial publishers. These entities, which generate enormous profits from unpaid peer review labor and institutional subscriptions, hold significant sway over who gets published and who doesn’t. As the study points out, this creates a bottleneck for knowledge dissemination and reinforces systemic inequities across the academic landscape.
“Today, research shared outside the peer review system receives little recognition in most institutional evaluations,” the authors note. This discourages the use of alternative platforms like preprint servers or open review systems, which could otherwise democratize access to knowledge and reduce time lags in scientific communication.Yet, despite the bleak outlook, the researchers offer a vision for change.
One major proposal is to move the control of journals away from commercial publishers and back into the hands of academic institutions and nonprofits. The authors cite recent developments, such as the 2023 mass resignation of the editorial board of NeuroImage and the subsequent creation of the nonprofit Imaging Neuroscience, as positive steps in this direction.
They also highlight the importance of alternative publishing models. Preprint platforms are gaining traction among scientists who wish to share their results more rapidly, and new ideas like modular publishing and community-driven peer review systems (such as Peer Community In) are starting to emerge as credible alternatives.
The study doesn’t stop at publication reform. It argues that changes to academic publishing must be matched by a rethinking of how scholarly contributions are evaluated. The authors advocate for a “menu of metrics” that can be adjusted based on the context—be it research impact, societal relevance, or reproducibility. The goal is to develop a system that rewards substance, not just surface.
While this may sound ambitious, the researchers emphasize that meaningful change requires coordinated action.
Trueblood and her colleagues urge universities, funding bodies, and scholarly communities to come together and shift the incentives that currently drive academia. “The goal is to realign the incentives so that knowledge is truly shared and scientific advances are valued for their contribution to society,” she said. “This isn’t just about changing the rules for a few researchers—it’s about redefining what counts as success in science.”
It’s a bold statement in a field where tradition and precedent often rule the day. But with public trust in science more important—and more fragile—than ever, many argue that the time for reform is now.
As scientific fields become increasingly interdisciplinary and global, and as public engagement with research becomes a growing priority, the rigid structures of the old publishing system are showing their age. The study from IU and its partners doesn’t just call attention to the cracks—it offers a blueprint for building something better.
Whether the academic world will follow that blueprint remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that the conversation has begun. And for many, that’s already a step in the right direction.
