Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Publish or perish: a proposal.

M Angell

    Annals of Internal Medicine
    |February 1, 1986
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Physicians face pressure to publish frequently, leading to questionable practices. Limiting publication counts for academic promotion could prioritize research quality over quantity.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Medicine in the Noise Age: what can we believe?

    Accountability in research·2002
    Same author

    A farewell.

    The New England journal of medicine·2000
    Same author

    The pharmaceutical industry--to whom is it accountable?

    The New England journal of medicine·2000
    Same author

    Let's stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. Interview by Mark Crane.

    Medical economics·2000
    Same author

    Patients' rights bills and other futile gestures.

    The New England journal of medicine·2000
    Same author

    Is academic medicine for sale?

    The New England journal of medicine·2000
    Same journal

    Correction to I.M. Matters News: Sleep medicine for seniors.

    Annals of internal medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Adverse Events After Same-Day COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination Versus Influenza Vaccination Alone : A Target Trial Emulation.

    Annals of internal medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Leveraging Real-World Evidence to Inform Regulatory, Clinical, and Coverage Decisions Related to Glucagon-Like Peptide-1-Based Therapies: Synopsis of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop.

    Annals of internal medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Methodological Approaches to Real-World Evidence Generation for Glucagon-like Peptide-1-Based Therapies: Synopsis of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop.

    Annals of internal medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Weekly and Biweekly Treatment With Bofanglutide Versus Semaglutide in Chinese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes : A Phase 2b Randomized Clinical Trial.

    Annals of internal medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Grappling with GLP-1 prescribing.

    Annals of internal medicine·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Medical research
    • Academic medicine
    • Scholarly publishing

    Background:

    • Physician promotion and funding in academic medicine are heavily influenced by publication volume.
    • This creates pressure on investigators to publish as frequently as possible.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To address the negative consequences of excessive publication pressure in academic medicine.
    • To propose a method for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing.

    Main Methods:

    • The study discusses the link between publication numbers and academic advancement.
    • It identifies common "unfortunate practices" driven by this pressure, such as trivial studies, duplicate publications, and authorship issues.
    • A potential solution involving a publication ceiling for evaluation is proposed.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • The current system incentivizes quantity over quality in medical publications.
    • Practices like publishing trivial studies, dividing research into multiple installments, and questionable authorship arise from this pressure.
    • Fraudulent activities may also be motivated by the need to publish.

    Conclusions:

    • Implementing a ceiling on the number of publications considered for promotion and funding can mitigate negative practices.
    • This approach would encourage a focus on the substance and quality of research rather than mere volume.
    • It would lead to more focused attention from both researchers and evaluators on the significance of each published work.