The phrase “publish or perish” has become deeply ingrained in academic life. For many scholars, especially early-career researchers, the number of papers published has become the ultimate yardstick for career progression, institutional recognition, and even access to funding. While publications remain an essential means of communicating knowledge, the relentless drive to publish for numbers rather than for substance is gradually eroding the true essence of scholarship.

This culture of hyper-productivity creates several worrying consequences. It pushes researchers to focus on what is quickly publishable instead of what is truly important. It encourages fragmentation of work into multiple papers (“salami slicing”), and often diverts attention from pressing societal or theoretical challenges that may require deeper, riskier, and more time-intensive investigations. Most concerning, it traps early-career researchers in a cycle where survival in academia is equated with volume, not value.

But academia was never meant to be a numbers game. The highest purpose of research is to generate meaningful knowledge, to address real-world and disciplinary problems, to inform policy, and to shape society in constructive ways. A single well-conceived and rigorously executed study can often contribute more to the body of knowledge than dozens of superficial publications. True impact is measured not by how many papers we add to our CVs, but by how much our work changes thinking, informs practice, or provides solutions.

What is needed, therefore, is a cultural reset. Universities and funding bodies must redesign their reward systems to recognize depth, originality, and impact. Academic promotions and grant allocations should place higher value on work that is problem-solving, innovative, and transformative even if such work results in fewer publications. At the same time, researchers themselves must embrace a mindset shift: to see publishing not as an end in itself, but as a means of advancing knowledge that matters.

This is not about rejecting productivity, it is about redefining it. A culture that values quality over quantity will not only strengthen academic integrity, but also restore the connection between scholarship and the communities it is meant to serve.

How can we collectively shift from a numbers-driven culture to an impact-driven one? I would love to hear your perspectives.