Israel Sebastian / Getty
‘Publish or perish’ is a common mantra in academia. By that metric, I definitely did not perish in 2025.
Last year, I published seven scholarly articles as either the first or corresponding author. As an ex-postdoc who became a research scientist studying astrobiology at Carnegie Science in Washington DC towards the end of last year, I’ve been writing academic articles for more than a decade. I have never before experienced such a bounty of publications. Last year’s publications represent more than 40% of my first- and corresponding-author papers. By almost any measure, it was a wildly successful year. But I’m not here to brag. Rather, I want to point out that just because last year was prolific, it does not mean that the preceding years in which my research output was lower were not also successful.
Invisible progress
I did not produce a single lead-author paper between my final publication as a graduate student in 2017 and the first paper I published as a postdoc in 2022. Having such a huge gap in your publication record usually spells disaster for an early-career researcher. We are judged mainly on our output of scientific publications. The larger the volume of papers and the higher their impact, the better. But any peer-reviewed product is infinitely better than nothing, especially when your career is young and your CV is short. Going several years without a first-author paper is seen as a red flag in the academic job market.
Gender gap in research publishing is improving — slowly
So what was I doing from 2017 to 2022? During those ‘ghost years’, it might have seemed to the outside world that I had disappeared from science, but I wasn’t slacking off in the laboratory. I was discovering myself as a researcher, diving head first into my field of astrobiology, learning methods and developing research concepts — activities that set me on the path to becoming the scientist I am today. Although I contributed as a co-author on a few manuscripts, the projects I led had frustrating false starts; some ended up going nowhere. But when I think about those five paperless years, I don’t feel disappointment and I don’t see failure. Instead, I’m proud of how much I grew. The seven papers I published last year would not exist without those fallow years.
Personal satisfaction alone, however, is not a recipe for survival in academia. If it weren’t for the good graces of more-senior academics looking out for me, my research career certainly would have perished as a result of my lack of publications. Without mentors who supported me, believed in me and took chances on me, I would have left science by now.
Pressure to publish
I know many people who have left (or are considering leaving) academia because they’ve been made to feel that their publication rate was not high enough — and that they, therefore, were not enough. Although it is only one of myriad factors at play, concern over publication rate and staying productive is a contributor to anxiety in people who work in academia1. When success is distilled into simple metrics, it’s easy to compare and compete. A cut-throat environment doesn’t only lead to poor research, it can drive people to leave science altogether. In fact, nearly half of all scientists depart academia less than a decade after publishing their first paper2.
How can we resist the most tragic effects of the publish-or-perish mentality? Here are four suggestions.
How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing
First, we must recognize that research takes time — often much longer than a single year. Each of the seven papers I published in 2025 represents several years of hard work that happened to culminate this year. In fact, one of those projects began in 2020; another’s seeds were planted at a workshop held at Carnegie Science in 2022. Unfortunately, many postdoctoral research stints are shorter than the time it takes to see ambitious scientific projects from inception to publication, and research has shown that uncertainty from short-term contracts increases career vulnerability3. We have to find ways to give slow productivity the chance to pay off, and we have to give ourselves and each other the grace to let years go by when science simply takes that long to develop.
