Assessing outputs, ignoring research processes

Our preliminary findings so far are clear: most research assessment frameworks focus narrowly on outputs, publication counts, citation rates, impact factors, rather than the research process or its broader value. This shapes incentives to increase these metrics, often at the cost of quality, reproducibility, or societal relevance. As a result, academic production is stuck in a loop: publish, score, and advance.

Questionable publishing is not an external problem to this system, it is a direct consequence of it. When researchers are pushed to hit numeric targets quickly and with minimal resistance, they often turn to the grey zones of publishing. These ‘grey zones’ include not only so-called ‘predatory’ journals but also questionable practices like honorary authorship and slicing data into multiple minimal publications. All of these flourish in systems obsessed with quantity.

Changing publication motivations

Our first analysis show that a significant share of academic publications are motivated less by curiosity or scientific contribution than by the need to secure a promotion, meet tenure requirements, or earn incentive points. Publishing becomes a stepping stone rather than an act of advancing knowledge.

This aligns with our earlier findings: the rate of publications in questionable journals spikes shortly before major academic milestones like promotion applications. In these moments, researchers operate within what our co-investigator Şefika Mertkan describes as a ‘shadow academia’: an alternative ecosystem shaped by performance indicators rather than scientific merit. It often provides a fragile sense of productivity and success, especially for those who struggle with repeated rejections from high-impact journals.

Years ago, Derek de Solla Price warned that unchecked growth in scientific publishing could lead to a ‘scientific apocalypse’—a point where resources are exhausted and the system collapses under its own weight. Today, the relentless push for more publications, regardless of substance, brings this metaphor uncomfortably close to reality.

The geopolitics of questionable publishing

Questionable publishing is often framed as an issue of individual research ethics. But it is equally about how global knowledge production is organized. The norms of what counts as legitimate research and how it circulates are mostly defined in the Global North, creating structural barriers for researchers in the Global South.

In one of our analyses, we found that articles from countries like India, Pakistan, and Iran, published in journals labelled as questionable, often receive citations from mainstream journals indexed by Web of Science. This shows that knowledge produced in peripheral regions can find its way into circulation mainly through these unconventional channels—sometimes because structural or language barriers limit access to ‘core’ journals.

This points to an epistemic injustice, echoing Miranda Fricker’s concept: when researchers from certain regions are systematically devalued or unheard, it is not just an individual problem but a structural one.

The unfinished race for early career researchers

The burden of this publish-or-perish culture falls most heavily on early career researchers: PhD students, postdocs, and precarious academics constantly navigating shifting criteria for promotion and incentives. Yet, ironically, senior gatekeepers who set these rules often do not meet the same standards themselves. Our analysis shows that many jury members and panelists do not maintain publication profiles that align with the criteria they enforce on others—a clear sign that the system works selectively, often locking out those with the least power to push back.

Towards fair, process-oriented, context-sensitive assessment

Questionable publishing practices reveal the flaws of the entire evaluation system. Real change requires rethinking assessment from the ground up. The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) offers a promising blueprint, encouraging diverse, qualitative, and context-aware approaches instead of fixating on citation counts and impact factors alone. This transformation is not just a bureaucratic reform but an ethical responsibility. It means acknowledging that questionable publishing is not just an individual failing but a structural outcome, and that it will persist as long as the system rewards quantity over quality.

A system that values the research journey as much as the result. A system where quality, transparency, and context matter. Where diverse outputs are recognized. And where early career researchers have clear and fair paths to thrive.

As we keep working on this project, our hope is to contribute to building this kind of research culture—one that asks not just where we publish, but why and how.