Publish or Perish Paradox

The "publish or perish" system is generally held as the key to higher education career advancement. This article separately examines the two parts of the proposition ("publish" and "perish") by first detailing the operations and trends of university libraries, scientific journals, and university presses, so as to give a concise picture of the composition and state of the academic publishing industry. Next, market factors that may be causing an increasing number of academics to "perish" rather than gain tenure are explored. This article also briefly describes some legislation that additionally influences the state of professional academia, and finishes with a look at one trend that may be related to the increasing difficulty of obtaining tenured positions at large research universities.

Keywords Dissertation; E-publishing; Liberal arts college; Monograph; Peer review process; Publish or perish; Teaching assistant; Tenure; Trade publisher; University press

Overview

The Publish or Perish Model

The motto publish or perish succinctly encapsulates what is and has been for many years central to the higher education career ladder. Professors and university administrators understand quite well that writing and publishing academic works in various academic journals, or publishing textbooks and other large works, are essential for career advancement and ultimately decides whether or not professors gain a tenured position at a university. Although the system of publish or perish is common knowledge among career educators, Clapham (2005) advises students that nothing is as important in furthering one's career than consistently publishing one's work. Clapham writes that "publications say that you are serious about research, and can take the scientific process all the way through to completion" (¶ 14).

The Journal of Scholarly Publishing published an article that arose from a Johns Hopkins roundtable of invited presidents, chief academic officers, policy and legal experts, leaders of scholarly organizations, heads of academic publishing centers, and librarians of major research universities across North America. This collection of academic experts, from some of the top schools in the United States, considered the academic publishing system for universities, and they came to some very important conclusions about the current system in the academic community. The roundtable noted that the three main criteria for measuring an academic paper's success are the following:

• the approval of the work through the peer review system,

• the number of research citations that an author receives,

• the prestige of the journal in which the academic paper appears.

They also noted that the results of successful publishing accrues "indirectly in the form of promotion and tenure within one's home institution, the awarding of grants and fellowships, or the appearance of attractive offers from other institutions" ("To publish and perish," 1998, ¶ 13).

The Purpose of Publishing

The roundtable also outlined the fundamental role of publishing within the academic community. The authors wrote that publication accomplishes "four objectives of critical importance to universities and colleges." These four objectives are the certification, dissemination, indexing, and archiving of research and scholarship. Therefore, the primary reason for the "publish or perish" model that operates in universities is that publishing academic works, while serving to advance the knowledge within an academic field, also provides a method for assessing the value of author contributions to a given field. Within academic publishing, the peer review mechanism also helps publishers to decide whether they should accept an article or larger manuscript. The peer review mechanism verifies the value of any given contribution—and thereby the author as well —for a given field of knowledge. This is why the roundtable concluded that publication is considered the "primary channel through which individual faculty demonstrate their worthiness for tenure, promotion, grants, and fellowships" ("To publish and perish," 1998, ¶ 12).

Powell (2006) confirmed that submitting and publishing academic papers is central to career advancement when she writes that the best advice to anyone entering the academic market today is that "the most productive thing they can do is to work on scholarship" (¶ 11). Powell urges all professionals to write articles and make sure to complete one's research and writing, and to persistently follow through to publication. This gives professionals a much stronger advantage by being more marketable within their career fields (Powell, 2006, ¶ 11).

Since experience could be quite effective for preparing students in medical or legal professions, it seems reasonable that relevant university departments might prefer hiring professors strongly based on their practice-related experience. However, Powell quotes an expert in the field of law who says that anyone interested in teaching law needs to have a lot of personal drive for publishing academic work. This same expert, who is responsible for selecting law professors for a major university, is quoted in Powell's article as saying, "a person who has spent 20 years in practice and has a sterling record as a litigator, but who has never tried to do any publishing, is a person I'm probably not going to hire because that's a person who isn't driven to do scholarship" (Powell, 2006, ¶ 9).

Powell notes that this trend is especially true at elite law universities such as Harvard or Yale, and that the academic marketplace in general increasingly demands scholarly publication over experience. In the same article another expert, the associate dean for academic affairs at Howard University, said that the overall trend in all law schools is to place much more emphasis on scholarship than practical experience (Powell, 2006, ¶ 10). Thus, when we speak of the publish or perish model within the educational profession, we really are speaking about the prevalence of this model in all academic fields. Bunce (1996) also confirms this point when he writes that academic promotion and tenure are "strictly based on the amount of publishing you do and the money you bring in research grants" (¶ 18). Considering the discipline-wide and nationwide use of the publish or perish paradigm in colleges and universities, the surrounding circumstances (that is, the changes in technology or market conditions) that might influence whether this long-standing paradigm is still effective should be examined. Although the "publish" part of the motto is closely connected to the circumstances of the "perish" part of the motto, the two parts should be analyzed independently—there will be some overlap of discussion because one part of the proposition influences the other.

Publish

There has long been a tradition that universities—and university libraries in particular—should supply as many of the academic journals and other research periodicals as possible to their faculty. According to the Johns Hopkins roundtable, this tradition has operated well for schools since the mid-twentieth century because the volume of published material was manageable for university departments and libraries. However, this tradition is now straining the current budgets of universities. The roundtable’s findings point out that "the expectation that many faculty members exert on their institutions continues to be that 'the institution will provide,' regardless of cost, regardless of changes in the circumstances of academic publishing." The authors remarked that this of course seems like a reasonable expectation from the faculty's perspective, but "given the market forces that now shape the economies of universities and colleges, the unreasonableness of the expectation from the institution's point of view becomes more apparent" ("To publish and perish," 1998, ¶ 13).

The Cost of Publication

There are many academic university presses that are part of this traditional publishing network distributing academic publications throughout the nation's university libraries. Ewers (2004) points out yet another problem university presses are experiencing: The tradition has been that university presses are not actually intended to be profitable operations, but the steep rise of production costs is causing a clear risk that these presses may go bankrupt. Ewers noted that, when the first university presses came into operation at the beginning of the twentieth century, "the president of Columbia [University] remarked that they would publish important academic work that was 'destitute of commercial value'" (¶ 5). Ewers observed that today, "a first book in the humanities costs around $25,000 to produce but brings in only $15,000," meaning these university presses may be losing larger amounts of money than they did in the past. This has an effect on how many books they can publish (Ewers, 2004, ¶ 5). This also may have an effect on which books they decide to publish.

The Johns Hopkins roundtable made this same observation about increasing prices, but from the point of view of the libraries rather than university presses. One of the invited experts, David Shulenburger, then-provost at the University of Kansas, gathered some revealing data concerning the academic publication market. Shulenburger noted that between 1986 and 1996 the consumer price index increased by 44 percent. During that same period, the cost of monographs increased by 62 percent. He also noted that the cost of scholarly journals increased by 148 percent. His research shows that the "price of subscriptions to online databases grew even more rapidly, in the most notorious case by over 350 per cent in a single year" (cited in "To publish and perish," 1998, ¶ 6). Related to these trends, Freitas (2003) also wrote about some of the significant changes occurring in the publishing industry, and noted that there is a "new emphasis on the bottom line at university presses," which is in turn having an effect on the career paths of educators. Because books are quite expensive to publish, many university presses are trying to print books that will sell a larger print run. Some scholars are attempting to sell books as ebooks to increase circulation of their ideas (Jeffress & Lyle, 2012). Freitas observes that in the academic publishing industry it is fairly common knowledge that marketability and profitability are now the top priorities of university presses, and that this is causing the traditional monograph to virtually disappear (Freitas, 2003, ¶ 3).

Industry Consolidation

Teute (2001) writes about market forces causing adverse effects in publishing. There has long been a trend toward consolidation of publishing houses, and the market is now dominated by "a few conglomerated behemoths." Teute noted that there are increasingly "a lot of mediocre books" that come from these "conglomerated behemoths." Teute made an important point in commenting that a book's potential for higher sales does not always mean a book possesses higher quality; in fact, there could even be a negative correlation. Like Freitas's observation above, Teute noted that "university presses have not been immune to these forces, and are beginning to function like trade publishers." In other words, the university press editors have been seeking and promoting books that they believe will cross over to the general reading market. Teute believes that "ultimately trade marketing standards have an adverse impact on the publication of scholarly monographs." The university press takes its resources and concentrates them on promoting trade books, which often means that specialized studies or detailed research projects are either rejected or put at the bottom of the publishing priority list. Teute argued that scholars whose topics are suitable to a general public readership are often pressured to distort their scholarship to make it even more approachable to the general public; this is done by "shortening texts, popularizing arguments, and minimizing scholarly apparatus" (Teute, 2001, ¶ 7).

Subject Marketability

There are several interrelated problems damaging the academic publishing industry. As Ewers wrote, some presses are decreasing the number of books they publish annually, while other publishers have stopped publishing first-time authors and, across the board, publishers are avoiding any topic that seems unmarketable. By way of example, Ewers wrote of an assistant professor of English at UCLA, who called the University of California Press to try to get her work published and was told "bluntly over the phone: 'We no longer publish in literary criticism.'" Ewers claims that some subjects, such as linguistics and the history of science, are being eliminated from university press publication (Ewers, 2004, ¶ 6).

University press editors are now pushing scholars to write about topics that will have a wider appeal, and to write in a style that has wider public appeal; editors are also selecting those academics who have some skill in writing for a more general or layperson audience. This trend could cause some adverse effects on traditional scholarship, and it could also cause negative consequences in the career advancement of academics.

Perish

Teute (2001) also noted that the marketplace and the professional place "seem to be pointing in opposite directions." Universities are demanding that academics publish more and more work in order to obtain tenure and promotion, yet there are market trends that seem to work against the publication of rigorously researched projects written in a traditional scholarly style and format. Also, many library budgets are not large enough to keep up with purchasing and archiving so many volumes of work, as the roundtable findings above indicated. Teute also noted that "sky-rocketing journal prices are eating their [university libraries] budgets and space," while "university presses, in the face of higher production costs and shrinking purchasers, do not want to publish specialized studies that they cannot sell" (Teute, 2001, ¶ 8).

The Catch-22

Freitas (2003) asked the critical question, "if the dissertation is by definition specialized scholarly work, and specialized scholarly work is now largely unpublishable, what is an aspiring academic to do?" (¶ 3). As Ewers pointed out, while market and economic pressures are making it harder for scholars to successfully publish a book, schools are demanding that their faculties publish more of them. Although publishing a number of research articles in journals is often considered adequate for advancement in the hard sciences and some social sciences, Ewers asserts that "junior faculty in the humanities and political science now need at least one book to get tenure at most schools," and top schools often require a minimum of two published books in order to obtain tenure. This standard criteria has caused book submissions to increase enormously, while the actual publication numbers have remained the same (Ewers, 2004, ¶ 4) or have even decreased. In short, it is now much more difficult for a professor to obtain tenure.

Gad-el-Hadek (2004) offered additional observations about the state of publishing and its effect on professors seeking tenure. He wrote that the "pressure to add books to one's resumé parallels the pressure to publish journal articles" (¶ 11) and noted that since the early 2000s, junior faculty members have begun publishing books, an activity which traditionally was intended for senior faculty as the culmination of years of research and scholarship in a particular field. Some scholars are beginning to self-publish books, not knowing if such a move will be embraced by tenure committees (Riley, 2013). Gad-el-Hadek asserted that book acquisition editors who act as agents for certain for-profit publishers attend scientific meetings and, "swarming like timeshare condominium salesmen, convince unsuspecting potential authors of how easy it is to publish a book based on a thesis or an internal report." Again, we see an overlap between commercial and academic publishing—in this case, commercial publishers looking for potentially popular academic material. He added that with modern technology, a manuscript can be prepared quickly through cutting and pasting from earlier publications, and in a few short months or even weeks, a book is produced that for-profit publishers hope to sell through "blind library contracts" and other distribution channels. One negative result that Gad-el-Hadek pointed out is that, other than a "casual review of a table of contents and perhaps a one-page summary, the completed manuscript is never reviewed or copyedited" (Gad-el-Hadek, 2004, ¶ 11). Even worse, the peer review process is short-circuited, meaning it is often easier to publish a book than to get a journal article accepted for publication.

Keeping Count

Gad-el-Hadek (2004) argued that since about 1990, "bean counting" became acceptable to some universities, meaning quantity was emphasized over quality. The author believes that, as researchers discovered that they were not getting sufficient credit when they produced concentrated, quality publications (and as noted above, these types of publications are also increasingly difficult to get published), they found themselves needing to publish more papers, perhaps at the expense of quality. Also, it is often more effective for the academic to publish what is in reality one large research project as several papers in various journals so as to build up the number of published papers. This is one common technique used to meet the "bean counting" tenure committee requirements.

A professor who does not use this trick could even run into problems. For example, in one lawsuit a professor did not gain tenure because the college's appointments and promotions committee found that she had published only one article in a refereed professional journal. The professor argued that her article was published in her discipline's most prestigious publication and that its substance could have been published as several articles (Euben, 2002, ¶ 5). She chose to publish it as a single research project, and this decision consequently reduced her number of "beans."

Gad-el-Hadek wrote that, as the volume of paper submissions have climbed, more journals have come into existence to fill the additional demand for pages, and this in turn has increased the need for editors and referees. Gad-el-Hadek argued that this rapid increase caused a loss in the quality of editing and peer reviewing. He also argued that many journals "kept or even elevated their already high standards," and that "journals quickly stratified into elite and second- and third-tier publications" (Gad-el-Hadek, 2004, ¶ 9). By way of example, he describes the situation in his own field, that of fluid mechanics, which has about 250 journals specifically dedicated to what is a relatively small branch of science. He notes that fluid mechanics is merely one branch of continuum mechanics, which is just one branch of mechanics, which is a subdivision within classical physics (as opposed to the large field of quantum physics), and there are hundreds of publications dedicated especially to each branch of science. The author then asked, "Who can keep up with 250 journals?" He asserted that about 5 of those 250 journals are actually the important publications that have a reasonable "impact factor" (Gad-el-Hadek, 2004, ¶ 10).

With the rise in the number of journals comes a rise in the number of new journals with ill intentions. Truth (2012) has argued that academic e-journals are cropping up around the world and that these “dodgy” and “predatory” publications are extorting academic authors by charging them exorbitant fees to have their papers published.

Because even the university presses are moving toward marketability and profit when they decide on what to publish, and because publishing a book or two is a base criteria for obtaining tenure, far fewer academics are finding themselves in the position to qualify for tenure. Ewers (2004) quoted a director of one of the larger university presses: "Someone can write a spectacularly brilliant dissertation, but if it's on the wrong topic, it'll be impossible for them to find a publisher" (Holzman, cited in Ewers, 2004, ¶ 7). Ewers then posed a question that is essentially the same as Freitas's question above: "What should a graduate student do . . . if she's interested in French medieval women's history, which doesn't sell well, instead of American history, which does?" (Ewers, 2004, ¶ 7). It may be that some professors are “perishing” because they work on the wrong topic, which seems unfortunate and unfair. Market pressures in the academic publishing industry are also potentially dangerous because, over time, the entire corpus of academia can become distorted. Some experts suggest that the system of tenure needs to change.

Further Insights

Legislation Pressures

An additional problem in obtaining tenure is that some state legislatures have created laws that require professors to concentrate more on teaching and less on research. For example, the State of Ohio demands that public university teachers spend more of their time teaching undergraduate students. The Ohio legislature passed a law that requires a 10 percent increase in teaching at the state's thirteen public universities (Walters, 1995, ¶ 2). In addition to Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, and West Virginia have passed laws that demand in one way or another for public university professors to spend more time on teaching. Several other states are moving in this direction. State governments can exert a lot of pressure by refusing to open the purse strings. For example, the Maryland legislature "threatened to withhold more than $21 million in state-college funds until higher-education officials show a renewed concentration on teaching" (Walters, 1995, ¶ 4).

These laws have come about mainly from tuition-paying parents feeling angry about the number of graduate-student teaching assistants who lecture in state universities; this is why lawmakers have been trying to increase the teaching loads of professors (Walters, 1995, ¶ 3). Some teachers would probably prefer more emphasis on teaching and less on research and scholarly publishing, but the tenure requirements do not change even though the amount of teaching time does change; this makes it even more difficult to publish so as not to perish. As one expert in Walters' article observed, "On the one hand we're being just as pressured as before to contribute to the knowledge in our disciplines, and then on the other hand, there are demands to teach more and to teach better" (Walvoord, cited in Walters, 1995, ¶ 13).

Publishing vs. Teaching Excellence

Some universities claim to use criteria for tenure that give weight to excellence in teaching, but then again that was essentially the grounds of the above-cited lawsuit. The Connecticut supreme court awarded the professor $12.7 million because the school "breached the parties' contract [established by the faculty handbook] by indicating that [the professor] would be evaluated according to one standard but denying tenure because of her failure to meet a different one" (Euben, 2002, ¶ 3). The school denied the professor's tenure because she did not have enough publications to her credit, even though the faculty handbook claimed that publication had been deemphasized for other criteria such as teaching excellence. This tendency to claim that tenure changes are being made, when in reality they are not, is more common than one might suspect. Sowell noted that college and university presidents sometimes announce that they are going to return the balance between teaching and research by emphasizing excellence in teaching, but Sowell claimed that this rarely, if ever, happens, which is why he asserted that "few professors are prepared to jeopardize their careers by depending on such statements—and those who do usually end up paying the price for their naivete" (Sowell, 1995, ¶ 5). The "naïve" professor above was remunerated nearly $13 million for believing her institution at face value, but certainly there are many more who, as Sowell wrote, do "end up paying the price for their naivete."

Viewpoints

Solutions

Teute (2001) asserted that there are several possible ways of addressing the problems within the publish or perish paradigm. One is to do away with tenure, though this does not seem a feasible solution. Another is to revise the criteria on which tenure is accorded, which seems more feasible. Teute argued that the system of tenure is "undermining the objectives it is supposed to be serving," because the system "encourages quantity over quality and dilution of scholarly standards" (Teute, 2001, ¶ 21). Ewers cited one expert who argued that "there's no particular reason the gold standard has to be 'the book.'" Ewers suggested that journals could be given more weight, that electronic publishing, if it gained a reliable system of peer reviewing, might also be a cheaper alternative. Ewers admitted that tenure committees have not changed their emphasis on book publications (Ewers, 2004, ¶ 8). The Johns Hopkins roundtable confirmed this viewpoint. The roundtable authors believed that the first step to solve the problem is "a fundamental disentangling of the notions of quality and quantity." They noted that it is not a good system to require (without exception or consideration of material published) "thirty-two articles to be included in a tenure portfolio" ("To publish and perish," 1998, ¶ 44). In other words, the roundtable agreed there needs to be less “bean counting.”

Quality vs. Quantity

This is also why the roundtable advised, as its first step, that "faculty personnel committees make it clear that the quality of work accounts for more than the sheer number of articles and papers submitted for promotion and tenure." One problem can arise when such committees make this policy clear, but then make tenure decisions that are counter to these policies. The roundtable also suggested making some organizations' Web sites into venues for the reporting of research findings. The authors described in detail how such a system could realistically be implemented (“To publish and perish,” 1998, ¶ 36). As Teute observed of the publish or perish system in relation to the Internet: "[T]hose seeking to make original contributions to scholarship and to earn professional recognition face serious questions concerning control over and reward for their ideas when these are posted on the Internet" (Teute, 2001, ¶ 23). Thus e-publishing will probably not spare a professor from perishing.

The Move to Smaller Schools

A growing number of educators are opting to completely remove themselves from the laboratory rat race. More doctoral students are getting their doctorates with the intention of teaching at smaller schools rather than research universities. The Washington-based Association of American Colleges and Universities surveyed 186 first-year doctoral students who were interested in an academic career and asked them where they would like their first job to be (Bunce, 1996, ¶ 11); 45 percent answered that they wanted to teach at a small, liberal arts college. This was the single largest category of choice and was almost double the second choice: research universities (Bunce, 1996, ¶ 12). Perhaps some professors, and a growing number of the newest additions to the educational profession, are weary of the tenure system. As Bunce noted, the tradition has been for colleges to produce "PhDs to go on to other research universities," but that system is seeing a steep decline. One expert from Bunce's article believes this decline has occurred because "there are not that many jobs," which means that "students are choosing alternatives" (Bunce, 1996, ¶ 13).

Terms & Concepts

Dissertation: A formal thesis written by a candidate for the doctoral degree at a university and usually a requirement for the degree.

E-publishing: (also called Web Publishing and Online Publishing). Publishing that distributes information via a computer network or is produced in a format for use with a computer or similar electronic device (such as a tablet, laptop, or smartphone).

Liberal Arts Colleges: Unlike vocational or technical schools, liberal arts colleges are primarily four-year colleges that focus on undergraduate study in the liberal arts. The courses of study impart general knowledge and emphasize the development of general intellectual capacities to provide a basis for continuing graduate studies in a professional field.

Monograph: A scholarly work such as a book or a treatise on a single substantial subject, usually written by one person. It is considered a nonserial publication that is complete in itself and thus differs from a journal or magazine.

Peer Review Process: The peer review process (also known as referee process) subjects an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of experts in the same field. This process is used by editors to evaluate and select submitted manuscripts for publication. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to prevent the inclusion of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, or personal views in objective scholarly work.

Publish or Perish: A well-known phrase in academia describing how writing and publishing academic works in various academic journals, or publishing textbooks and other large works, is essential for career advancement. The system ultimately decides whether or not an academic gains a tenured position at a university.

Tenure: In the United States, tenure refers to life tenure as a professor at a college or university with assurance by contract that the position will continue until retirement. Tenure is associated with senior job titles such as professor and associate professor. A tenured position will not be offered until a strong record of research, teaching, publishing, and administrative service is established by the academic.

Trade Publisher: A commercial, for-profit publishing house. Trade publishers tend to publish books, magazines, and other periodicals for a readership that exceeds that of university presses. Trade publishers are generally also much more concentrated on advertising, marketing, and distribution than are university presses.

University Press: An academic, nonprofit publishing house affiliated with a large research university that produces primarily scholarly works. University presses may also publish trade books, textbooks, and reference works to offset negative profits netted from scholarly publication. Many university presses thus operate at a loss and are subsidized by the universities.

Bibliography

Bunce, A. (1996). Small colleges lure profs tired of "publish or perish."Christian Science Monitor, 88 , 13. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9607081582&site=ehost-live

Clapham, F. (2005). Publish or perish. Bioscience, 55 , 390-391. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16978310&site=ehost-live

Euben, D. (2002). Publish or perish: The ever-higher publications hurdle for tenure. Academe, 88 , 78. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7063300&site=ehost-live

Ewers, J. (2004). Publish or perish. U.S. News & World Report, 136 , 52. Retrieved January 5, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12708078&site=ehost-live

Freitas, D. (2005). Publish and perish? Publishers Weekly, 252 : S8-S9. Retrieved January 5, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18853559&site=ehost-live

Gad-el-Hak, M. (2004). Publish or perish: An ailing enterprise? Physics Today, 57 , 61-62. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12400399&site=ehost-live

Jeffress, L., & Lyle, S. D. (2012). Maximizing accessibility of academic publications: Applications of electronic publishing technology. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5, 257-264. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82186562&site=ehost-live

Powell, T. (2006). Still publish or perish. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23 , 29. Retrieved January 5, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23339548&site=ehost-live

Riley, J. D. (2013). Self-publish or perish! Against the Grain, 25, 18-20. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88379737&site=ehost-live

Sowell, T. (1995). Good teachers need not apply. Forbes, 155 , 67. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9506197663&site=ehost-live

Teute, F. (2001). To publish and perish: Who are the dinosaurs in scholarly publishing? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 32 102-113. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4145760&site=ehost-live

To publish and perish: A policy perspectives roundtable. (1998). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 30 : 17-34. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3786277&site=ehost-live

Truth, F. (2012). Pay big to publish fast: Academic journal rackets. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10, 54-105. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88941553&site=ehost-live

Walters, L. (1995). "Publish or perish" becomes "teach or perish." Christian Science Monitor, 87 , 13. Retrieved January 5, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9503143322&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

De Lange, P. (2005). The long road to publishing: A user-friendly expos&#x00e9. Accounting Education, 14 , 133-168. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17628393&site=ehost-live

Fenton, H. (2007). Self-publish or perish? The implications of digital book production. Seybold Report: Analyzing Publishing Technologies 7, 7-10. Retrieved January 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24408488&site=ehost-live

Noè, L. & Batten, D. (2006). Publish or perish: The pitfalls of duplicate publication. Palaeontology, 49 , 1365-1367. Retrieved January 8, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22930839&site=ehost-live

McGrail, M., Rickard, C. & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25 , 19-35. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19495383&site=ehost-live