The Paper Factory: How Academia Turned Research into Production — From publish-or-perish pressure to the erosion of creativity in modern science
Science was once a patient pursuit. It thrived on curiosity, on the willingness to spend years, even decades, unraveling a single question. Thinkers and researchers dedicated their lives to exploring an idea from every possible angle, often without the immediate pressure of producing results on demand.
Today, however, this vision of science has been overshadowed by a system that measures success almost exclusively through output: the number of papers published, the impact factors achieved, the citations accumulated. But what happens when the pursuit of knowledge turns into a race for numbers?
While the phenomenon of fraudulent “paper mills” has drawn considerable attention, a subtler but equally damaging shift has emerged—academia itself has turned into a paper factory. Here, research is genuine, the data may be real, but the purpose is often no longer discovery but production. The machine must keep running, and papers are the fuel.
This article explores how the “publish or perish” mentality, precarious employment, and the erosion of creativity have transformed modern research into an industry of paper production. It also examines how this environment leads to unintentional errors and connects, albeit indirectly, to the extreme example of paper mills. Finally, we consider the economic structures that reinforce this cycle, turning science into a commodity.
Publish or Perish – The Core of the Problem
The phrase “publish or perish” has become more than a cliché; it defines the very structure of academic careers. Researchers are evaluated primarily on how many papers they can publish within a given period. Quality, depth, and originality often become secondary to volume and speed. The pressure is immense, especially for early-career scholars. Instead of asking “What is the most important question I could explore?” they must ask, “What can I get published the fastest?”
The consequences are visible everywhere. Papers are fragmented into smaller, minimally publishable units—a strategy sometimes called “salami slicing.” Findings are often incremental, designed to fit into the expectations of reviewers and journals rather than challenge existing paradigms. Risky or unconventional ideas are sidelined because they might take too long or fail to produce immediate results. In the long run, this creates a research landscape that is broad but shallow, rich in numbers but poor in transformative insights.
 |
| Pic: Thanks to Eric Prouzed on Unsplash |
The culture of publish or perish is self-reinforcing. Universities and funding bodies rely on metrics—impact factors, h-indexes, citation counts—to allocate grants, hire faculty, and award promotions. As a result, researchers are incentivized to optimize for these numbers, often at the expense of genuine curiosity. This isn’t just an individual problem; it’s a systemic issue, deeply ingrained in the structures of modern academia.
Precarious Work Conditions – Living from Deadline to Deadline
For many researchers, especially those at the beginning of their careers, this pressure is amplified by unstable employment. Fixed-term contracts, often lasting only a semester or a year, create an environment of constant uncertainty. The message is clear: publish enough, or you may not have a job tomorrow. This job insecurity pushes scholars to prioritize quick, publishable results over long-term, high-risk projects that might truly advance knowledge.
In a system where your next position depends on how quickly you can fill your CV with publications, the very nature of research shifts. Instead of engaging deeply with a problem, researchers must keep producing papers to survive. There is little room for intellectual risk or exploration when survival depends on output.
I have previously explored these labor conditions in another article, so I will not linger here. But it is worth noting how tightly these precarious conditions intertwine with the culture of publish or perish. The combination creates a perfect storm: time pressure, financial insecurity, and the demand for constant productivity.
Creativity, Joy, and Risk – The Forgotten Heart of Science
At its core, science is an act of curiosity. It is driven by questions, not quotas. Yet the current system often stifles the very qualities that make science innovative—creativity, joy, and the courage to take risks.
Historically, some of the most profound scientific breakthroughs came from individuals who dared to follow unconventional paths. They explored questions that did not have immediate answers, often spending years on a single hypothesis or idea. Such freedom is increasingly rare today. The pressure to publish quickly leaves little room for slow thinking, for experiments that might fail but ultimately lead to greater understanding. On the historical roots of science in another article.
Creativity thrives on freedom, and freedom requires time. But in an environment where time is measured in submission deadlines and grant cycles, creativity is reduced to a luxury. This also erodes the intrinsic motivation that drives many scientists. Research is no longer a joyful exploration but a race against the clock. The intrinsic excitement of discovery is replaced by the extrinsic reward of having one more line on your CV.
Risk-taking, too, suffers. True research involves uncertainty; it requires stepping into the unknown and embracing the possibility of failure. Yet failure is precisely what the current system punishes. A failed experiment or a project without immediate results is seen as wasted time, rather than as a necessary part of the scientific process. This fear of failure drives researchers toward safe, predictable topics that are easier to publish but less likely to lead to groundbreaking discoveries.
Unintentional Errors – A Symptom of the System
When speed and quantity dominate, mistakes are inevitable. These are not the deliberate fabrications associated with fraud or paper mills but the kind of unintentional errors that arise when researchers are forced to work too quickly. We might call them “careless mistakes,” but they are more accurately systemic errors—a byproduct of the conditions under which research is conducted.
Studies on retractions and corrections show that a significant number of errors in published papers are not due to dishonesty but to rushed processes: data mismanagement, misinterpretation, or simply lack of time for proper peer review and replication. In the race to publish, there is often no time for careful verification. This is not a personal failure of individual researchers but a failure of the system to allow for thorough, deliberate science.
 |
| Pic: thanks to Christa Dodoo on Unsplash |
Such errors can have long-term consequences. Incorrect findings can mislead future research, waste resources, and erode public trust in science. When the public hears about high-profile retractions or failed replications, the perception often is that science is unreliable.
These unintentional errors reveal a deeper truth: the structure of modern academia prioritizes output over understanding. Behind it all lies an economy that rewards speed and quantity — an economy that has turned knowledge itself into a commodity.
Paper Mills – The Extreme Reflection
If unintentional mistakes are the system’s silent symptom, paper mills are its loudest consequence — both born from the same pressure to produce. So called "paper mills" are commercial entities that fabricate entire papers—data, methods, and results—and sell them to researchers desperate for publications. Paper mills thrive because the demand for publications (due to career pressure) is so high. For those who lack the time, resources, or expertise to meet these demands, buying a paper becomes a tempting shortcut.
Although paper mills account for only a small fraction of scientific output, their existence highlights the broken incentives at play. When publications are treated as the primary currency of success, the temptation to cut corners—whether through honest mistakes or outright fraud—becomes stronger. Paper mills are not an isolated problem; they are the dark mirror of a system that prioritizes quantity over quality.
The Economy of Science
Behind all these dynamics lies an economy that treats scientific knowledge as a commodity. Academic publishing is now a multi-billion-dollar industry. Universities fund research, pay salaries, and then pay again to access the results through expensive journal subscriptions. Open-access publishing, while democratizing in theory, often comes with high article processing charges that further incentivize quantity—researchers must publish to justify these costs.
Metrics such as impact factors and citation counts function like a stock market for ideas. They turn knowledge into something that can be quantified, compared, and traded. This market logic reinforces the paper factory mentality. Instead of valuing the depth or originality of research, the system rewards the sheer number of publications and the prestige of the journals they appear in.
Changing this requires a radical rethinking of how we evaluate and fund science. Alternative models, such as narrative CVs or qualitative assessments of research impact, have been proposed, but they remain marginal. Until the core economic incentives shift, the cycle of paper production will continue.
Conclusion – Beyond the Paper Factory
The modern academic system risks reducing science to an industry of paper production. While fraudulent paper mills are an extreme example, the everyday reality of genuine research is not far removed from this logic. Publish or perish, precarious employment, the loss of creativity and risk, and the rise of unintentional errors all point to a system that values speed and quantity over true discovery.
Science does not need more papers; it needs better science. It needs time for careful thought, space for failure, and the freedom to pursue questions that cannot be answered in a few months. If we are to preserve the true spirit of research, we must confront the structures that have turned it into a paper factory. Until then, the machinery of academia will continue to run, producing papers at a relentless pace—while genuine understanding risks being left behind.
References
Amutuhaire, T. (2022). The Reality of the ‘Publish or Perish’ Concept, Perspectives from the Global South. Pub Res Q 38, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09879-0Di Domenico, S. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 145.
Elson, M., Arslan, R., & Hussey, I. (2024). Science is full of errors: Bounty hunters are here to find them. Wired.
Grech, V. (2022). Publish or perish, information overload, and journal impact factors - A conflicting tripod of forces. Saudi J Anaesth, 16(2), 204-207. doi: 10.4103/sja.sja_632_21.
Guardian Science Commentary. (2025, July 20). Scientific publishing needs urgent reform to retain trust in the research process. The Guardian.
Pineau, J., Vincent-Lamarre, P., Sinha, K., Larivière, V., Beygelzimer, A., d'Alché-Buc, F., Fox, E., & Larochelle, H. (2021). Improving reproducibility in machine learning research: A report from the NeurIPS 2019 reproducibility program. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.12206
Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(2), 613–628.
van Ravenzwaaij et al. (2023). Perspectives on scientific error. Royal Society Open Science, 10(7), doi: 10.1098/rsos.230448.
Inspired by HBS Puar
Authored by Rebekka Brandt