To universities, funding bodies, and academic policymakers:

The relentless pressure to publish without a corresponding emphasis on significance has morphed into a culture that prizes volume over value. We are seeing too many quantitative research articles that exist merely to boost publication counts, with minimal problem-solving impact or advancement of knowledge.

But there’s a growing movement pushing back and it's time for us all to stand with it.

Case Studies Showing What’s Possible

1. Bond University (Australia): Prioritizing Outcomes Over Output

Bond University consciously embraced a "quality over quantity" strategy. They realigned staff incentives, promotions, rewards, and recognition around research excellence rather than publication count. This shift fostered collaboration, empowered meaningful projects, and led to a more than 50% increase in research investment, along with measurable improvements in output quality.

(https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/research-magazine/why-bond-is-one-of-the-15-fast-moving-research-universities/news-story/dda05f228385b5a23539d01174a74fcf )

2. Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA): Reforming Evaluation Worldwide

DORA has become a global movement urging institutions to abandon flawed metrics like impact factors and h-index in favour of qualitative evaluation. More than 24,000 individuals and organizations in 164 countries have endorsed it, including the European Research Council and Utrecht University which phased out journal-level metrics entirely.

(Article The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and im...

3. The Power of “Broader Impacts”: Universities Reimagine Faculty Rewards

A recent white paper from The Pew Charitable Trusts highlights universities beginning to reward research that demonstrably benefits society through policy engagement, community partnerships, and tangible outcomes beyond academia. It emphasizes new reward structures that retain engaged scholars and deepen public trust.

(https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/10/universities-explore-ways-to-better-reward-faculty-for-research-that-enhances-society)

4. The UK Research Excellence Framework (REF): Emphasizing Impact and Environment

The REF has reshaped how institutions think about research. Instead of focusing solely on output, it assesses impact (through narrative case studies) and the research environment including infrastructure, staff development, and sustainability.

(https://academic.oup.com/rev/advance-article/doi/10.1093/reseval/rvae010/7607268)

5. Simple Reforms That Work: CoARA & Narrative CVs

The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) recommends concrete, actionable steps for institutions and funders: dropping journal names from CVs, substituting metrics with narrative impact statements, and giving equal footing to non-publication contributions like mentorship, data stewardship, and public engagement. (https://www.uksg.org/newsletter/uksg-enews-577/three-simple-steps-to-reform-academic-reward-systems)

What This Means and What We Must Do

These examples debunk the myth that shifting incentives away from quantity is either too radical or too difficult. Instead, they show that:

(a). Impact-focused evaluation works, and institutions benefit from deeper research engagement with communities, policymakers, and the broader public.

(b). Narrative-based assessment encourages meaningful contributions, allowing researchers to showcase their work's value without squeezing it into numbers.

(c). Strategic curricular reform and funding criteria can reignite the connection between academia and societal good.

A Unified Call to Action

Universities should:

(a). Restructure promotion and tenure pathways to value quality, significance, and impact, not just publication volume.

(b). Encourage narrative CVs and qualitative statements that showcase research’s real-world contributions.

(c). Support diverse outputs: data, policy briefs, community programs on par with traditional papers.

Funding agencies should:

(a). Tie grants to problem-solving potential and broader societal impact, not just publication projections.

(b). Encourage and fund interdisciplinary, engaged research collaborations.

(c). Champion initiatives like DORA, CoARA, and narrative-based evaluation frameworks.

Researchers should:

(a). Embrace a mindset where publications serve real inquiry and impact, not prestige or metrics.

(b). Actively communicate the context, significance, and implications of their work.

(c). Join reform initiatives and advocate for responsible metrics within their institutions.

Final Thought

The choice is clear: Do we continue accumulating papers or do we cultivate change that matters?

In shifting our incentives and evaluations, we can transform universities into engines of innovation, relevance, and societal progress.

Let’s be bold. Let’s elevate quality that matters.