Is ‘more the merrier’ true for academic writing?

Peter Higgs, one of the Nobel Prize winners in Physics in 2013, in an interview conducted by Decca Aitkenhead for the Guardian, said, "I was an embarrassment to the department when they did research assessment exercises. A message would go round the department: 'Please give a list of your recent publications.' And I would send back a statement: 'None.'" 

A recent search in SCOPUS revealed that Higgs published only four articles, two in 1964, one in 1966, and one in 1979, before the Nobel was awarded. Ironically, in recent times, many doctoral supervisors do not even consider awarding a Phd. degree unless the doctoral student publishes five, ten, or more articles. 

Does it mean those young researchers with sizable publications are philosophers or scholars per se? 

SCOPUS is one of the widely used comprehensive abstract and citation databases and is convenient for tracking and monitoring the career progression of an academic and researcher. It has indexed over 66 million items; the oldest item it includes dates back to 1823. 

As shown in SCOPUS, the number of citable papers a year increased from around one million in 1996 to more than three and a half million in 2021. The number of non-citable papers during the same period has also experienced a six-fold increase. However, the number of citable papers from Bangladeshi researchers is few. 

The conventional perception is the higher the number of items listed in SCOPUS, the more influential the researcher is. Many researchers these days are constantly trying to upgrade their profiles in SCOPUS. 

However, the question remains whether an impressive profile in SCOPUS reflects the exceptionality of the researcher. Does having a high number of articles automatically make a researcher a good thinker? 

Let us look at the profiles of some Bangladeshi experts. Muhammad Qudrat-A-Khuda, an organic chemist and the founder of the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR), has only seven papers in the SCOPUS database. 

Hiranmay Sen Gupta, a physicist, has 16. Jamal Nazrul Islam, a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, has 33. M. A. Wazed Miah, a physicist and the former Chairman of the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, has only two papers in the mentioned database. From social science, on the other hand, Rehman Sobhan, an economist by training and one of the country's top public thinkers, authored/co-authored 33 papers. 

Nobody doubts the contribution of these scholars. On the other hand, many young lecturers and assistant professors have a vast list of publications, evidence of their specialisation, not their creativity. 

Gundula Bosch of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health rightly urged, "Train Ph.D. students to be thinkers, not just specialists." 

More publications do not necessarily lead to becoming a philosopher or thinker. How many researchers and academics with a handsome research profile in SCOPUS contributed substantially to creating knowledge, building the nation, or strengthening the corporate sector in Bangladesh? 

During the early decades of the 20th century, the academic world first learned about the aphorism "publish or perish," perhaps the most threatening reminder to younger academics and researchers, including Ph.D. students. The drive for enriching the research profile is influenced by this "publish or perish" ultimatum. 

Although difficult to trace the origin, it is believed that either Harold Jefferson Coolidge, Logan Wilson, Kimball C. Atwood III, or Marshall McLuhan first used the phrase. Young researchers endorse the statement so frantically that the quantity of scholarly output per annum becomes a priority, irrespective of their calibre and the quality of the outlets through which their research results are disseminated. 

Nowadays, young researchers jump into the competition to flood their CVs with a list of publications that would secure an academic position with handsome pay. Once a job is secured, the publication trend continues, to secure promotion or tenure. 

Later, they start supervising Ph.D. students and convey the same message to the young researchers. The journey begins again, and the cycle continues. Hence, we see a massive rise in scholarly outputs in various research databases.

Although the advancement of knowledge benefits from the concept 'publish or perish,' not all publications by an individual necessarily contribute to creating knowledge. The continuous dissemination of ideas or research results does not always guarantee quality output. 

Publishing through the rigorous peer review process may lift up the quality of research; however, the review process for many journals is often questionable. Prioritising quantity may lead to dubious research practices, resulting in research misconduct. Publication bias may be another red flag for relentless publishing. Icy Lee, an education specialist from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, warned that scholars, especially those from developing countries, may publish and still perish.

The intention to publish more requires further collaboration, since a sole researcher is unlikely to produce multiple research papers simultaneously in a given time. So, many researchers worldwide try to strengthen their networks to increase research output. This allows many senior researchers to become the 'ghost' author. 

Ultimately, the collaboration does not benefit the researchers in developing countries, other than increasing a few research articles. By producing more, some researchers may enhance their scholarly reputation in the research community, while leaving the young researchers nowhere. 

In addition, young researchers face the stress and anxiety of continuing publication. Not only that, emphasising research output may also compromise teaching, mentoring, community engagement, and other valuable aspects of academia. 

Apart from these, the worst impact of the "publish or perish" model may be the wastage of research resources due to the lack of opportunity for replication of research.  The only benefit an individual researcher may enjoy by adopting "publish or perish" is the prospect of career progression. Most young universities prefer to recruit someone with a good publication record. 

To mitigate these issues, institutions, funding agencies, and the research community must promote a more balanced and holistic evaluation of researchers that considers not only their publication list but also the quality, impact, and integrity of their work, as well as their contributions to teaching, mentorship, and the broader scientific community. 

Besides, researchers, irrespective of the highest degree they have achieved, should consider generating helpful knowledge, instead of increasing the number of publications. The number of scholarly outputs should impact career progression, but not at the cost of devaluing the contribution of research to science and development. 

Syed Mahbubur Rahman is an associate professor and research director at BRAC Business School, BRAC University.

Nizahat Tamima is an economics graduate from BRAC University and a teaching assistant at BRAC Business School. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.