Science: growing malaise and the need for change

The malaise, to point out at the outset, relates to the hyper-universe of scientific production, as well as practices that measure that production by the number of articles and citations published – which, when approved, add to the disproportion of this universe. I have already written several texts in this field directly or indirectly related to this topic. Even at the instigation of new sources and events, I also feel uncomfortable returning to the topic, after all, haven’t I already talked about it? However, on second thought and with this warning of possible self-plagiarism, based on what I’ve been noticing, I see it necessary to go back to two earlier texts: the first also has the word “malaise” in the title and the second about some reaction to this malaise and the realization that changes are necessary . What has changed in the few years between these texts and what I am writing now is that there are signs of change and maintaining status (ie reactions against changes). Therefore, in general, it may be useful to return to the question.

The adage “spray or die”, also known as “publish or die” is widely known in the academic world, and little by little, outside it. The expression is outdated: As early as 1951, Marshall McLuhan wrote to Ezra Pound that “publish or perish is the motto of the common,” the poet had previously called college knuckles. In other words, the logo is long-lived, surviving and gaining importance over time in the world of scientific research. For example, I gather from my searches a 1986 article by Dr. Marcia Engel: “Publish or Perish: Show.” The summary of the article summarizes the author’s perception of 35 years ago:

“Due to the fact that promotions and funding for physicians in academic medicine are closely related to the number of publications, researchers feel compelled to publish as often as possible. This pressure leads to a number of unfortunate practices in medical publishing, including studies that are trivial because they yield rapid results, and reports are unfortunate. Necessary reporting the same study in different presentations, reporting on the study more than once, and including people with marginal participation in the work. as authors. It can also be a motive for fraud. An effective way to reduce these offenses and confirm the superiority of essentials over scale. […] It is to set a maximum number of publications that will be considered for promotion or funding. every post [considerada mais relevante] Thus he will get more attention….”

It’s exactly the same debate today, after these three and a half decades! Meanwhile, world university rankings appeared (beginning of the twenty-first century) which, like viruses and their variants, infected the academic world. Needless to say, ratings are strongly correlated with indicators. Thus, despite the diagnosis long before the spread of these new viruses, so far little action has been taken to distance themselves from delusion and delusion. This sentence refers to a recent article by journalist Carlos Orsi: “Fear and Delirium in the Communication of Science.” The journalist is an attentive and enthusiastic observer of the world of science and, after 35 years as an American physician, has photographed something similar about a reasonably large portion of the business and the scenario into which it is entered:

“These are works that exist because it is necessary to fulfill some bureaucratic publishing objective to achieve this or that indication in this or that classification, and not because there is a legitimate question to be answered, and an aspect of nature to be explored, which is a viable hypothesis to be tested; which is made on a minimal methodological quality, which sometimes represents little more than a weak mockery.”

And stingingly, without the physician’s commitment to any solution, after all, it is up to the Academy to take an interest in the matter, and concludes: “We hope that the delusions of scholars (appearing on the most influential lists, for example) will be resolved and universities awaken from delusions of grandeur (the desire to ascend In classification to match Oxford, another example).

But this may all seem to be resentment by a few, after all this “publish or perish” has merits, and in fact, in a case study (economics in Dutch universities), Henrik van Dalen refers to a society divided academic: “Permanent professors see , more than other faculty members, have the positive aspects of the ‘publish or perish’ principle and there are almost no drawbacks. This academic article from 2021 shows that in recent years, whether publishing or annihilation, it has left spaces for articles and opinions to become the subject of scholarly research. This appears when searching for expression in an international bibliographic database (Web of Science): it has rarely been mentioned in articles in the last century, and the number of articles, letters and editorials in scientific journals in various fields on this topic has increased significantly in recent years. Returning to the perception of permanent professors in the Netherlands, the message for young researchers this year (2021) is clear on the publishing advisory site for this audience (Proof-Reading-Service.com): “How to publish 50 papers a year”. Reading the text, I noticed that the advice was actually followed like a mantra by some colleagues, according to confessions or religious professions. Added to this are the article factories, through which your name can be listed as an author in a finished article, in view of a “modest” contribution. About this, there is also a text in the Questão de Ciência magazine.

Again, my history as a researcher, has always valued publishing articles in journals with a selective editorial policy, etc., etc. (while always adhering to the principle attributed to César Lattes: “It is very good to publish an article, such as as long as you have something to say first”), asks That biases be carefully considered (in the case against stupid productivity to meet metrics, although many of its practitioners believe this is all in the interest of science). Therefore, nothing is better than a careful quantitative study to steer the discussion a bit. An extensive bibliographic survey of articles and citations spanning several decades and careful analysis by Johann Chu and James Evans, published in October 2021, indicates growing inequality in article citations: more and more are always cited while potentially important contributions to the “deluge of articles” are not noted ( The corollary is that the number of non-significant articles that achieve goals that are also not mentioned increases through water). I offer small excerpts from the text about the specific scenario (methodological aspects, data and results can be estimated in the link above):

“The flood of new articles can deprive reviewers and readers of the cognitive openness needed to learn about and understand new ideas. […] The current nature of the scientific establishment, based on a scale of “more is better,” may, paradoxically, impede progress in larger scientific fields. “

And pay attention to one of the conclusions!

“Promotion and recognition systems that eschew quantitative metrics and value fewer contributions, are more robust and innovative, can reduce the deluge of articles vying for attention in their field.” In 2021 we came up with a suggestion that was actually made in 1986, in case anyone remembers the quote at the beginning of this text.

If “publish or annihilate” becomes a quantitative field of research, reactions to automated assessment methods begin to qualitatively review worldwide. Three well-known and influential international scientists wrote a letter also published in 2021: “A Appeal for a Radical Change in Research Evaluation in Spain”. The Spanish scenario described is very similar to the Brazilian scenario: fetishism regarding the use of scales and its negative consequences, a narration of the movements that began in the last decade, the principles of which must be taken into account in the radical changes required. And new movements and changes are implemented, even if they are not drastic. I only include three of them. The initiative is older, but it is ongoing: it is the “No Discrimination” movement, which was started by a group of researchers from the Free University of Brussels. The entire site is in French, but the tagline is self-explanatory, even though it mixes French and English: “Forget about your impact factor (which is one of those metrics, and the most underpowered, in fact, despite being widely used), here we have it. Excellence”.

Once again this wall between potential resentment (?) and an accurate diagnosis? For motion chart is an accurate diagnosis. And as announced, changes are happening. In mid-2021, it was announced that Utrecht University in the Netherlands would drop the scales at least partially. The Change Assessment Project author told Nature: “Influence factors – as well as relevant metrics such as the H-index – contribute to science’s ‘productivity’, which values ​​volume over quality research. […] This has become a very sick paradigm, which is beyond what is really relevant to science.”

In recent weeks, a small note in the French newspaper Le Monde has commented on these changes in several countries, including France, with assessments that distance themselves from the scales: “If it is not a revolution, it is a model cultural shift.” Why the change? According to a comment by Cherifa Boukassem, Professor at Claude Bernard I University in Lyon, “We started thinking about ‘publication’ and no longer thought about ‘research’. We are no longer trying to produce knowledge, but we ask ourselves what kind of article it would be interesting to do.” The question remains: Fun for whom? Possible answer: an end in itself.

It is time for us to discuss more closely within the academics what we are doing here, with fears, delusions, and delusions. Thoughts and actions originate in many places! We need new islands and new directions.