Ready to publish with confidence? Our PhD Journal Writing Service helps you write, edit and submit papers that meet academic journal standards. Get expert support now.
The mantra “publish or perish” has long guided academic careers. Now, this pressure is increasingly trickling down to doctoral education. Today, many PhD candidates feel they must produce publications even before completing their thesis.
In some disciplines, it has become normal for doctoral students to publish multiple papers during their studies. Indeed, some programmes even make this an official requirement for graduation. This expectation reflects a hyper-competitive academic environment.
In such a climate, publications are often treated as the primary measure of a researcher’s ability. This represents a profound shift. Publishing was once just one aspect of PhD training, but it has now become the overriding focus of the doctoral journey. This shift raises critical questions about what we gain and what we lose. We must ask whether academia truly benefits when publishing becomes the sole focus of PhD programmes.
Rising pressure to publish during the PhD
Over recent decades, universities worldwide have placed greater emphasis on PhD students publishing their work while still in training. The share of doctoral students listed as authors on research papers has grown significantly (Horta and Li, 2022).
Faculty and departments often urge PhD researchers to start writing journal articles and conference papers early. Doing so is seen as a way to demonstrate their productivity to prospective employers and funding bodies. In many cases, supervisors and doctoral programmes encourage or even expect candidates to have at least one publication before graduation.
In some countries, this expectation has even been codified into official requirements. Until recently, several leading Chinese universities mandated that PhD students publish in specified journals to qualify for their degree (Liu, 2021).
Several forces drive this trend. They include an increasingly competitive academic job market and university ranking systems that reward research output. There is also a widespread belief that publishing early benefits students’ development.
Why publishing is encouraged in doctoral training
Publishing research during a PhD does confer clear advantages for students and for the broader research community. First, it gives doctoral candidates invaluable experience in academic writing and the peer review process. Through the process of drafting papers, responding to peer reviewers, and navigating revisions, students acquire practical skills. These are lessons in scholarly communication that coursework alone cannot teach (Horta and Li, 2022). This process socialises students into the norms of their discipline and helps them become more adept at communicating scientific ideas.
Secondly, publications allow important findings from doctoral projects to reach the scholarly community sooner. Rather than waiting until a thesis is complete, key results enter the scholarly record earlier. This allows others to build upon them and advance knowledge more rapidly.
For the students themselves, having publications under their belt by the time they graduate can significantly boost their career prospects. An early publication record signals to hiring committees and grant panels that a candidate is capable of producing research output. In today’s climate, this has become a de facto requirement for securing academic positions or postdoctoral opportunities.
Compromising research quality and innovation
However, making publication the dominant goal of a PhD can come at the expense of research quality and genuine innovation. The intense pressure to generate papers often incentivises short-term strategies over deep, exploratory scholarship. Doctoral students may feel compelled to choose projects or methods that are more likely to yield quick publications. They end up avoiding more challenging questions whose payoff is less certain. Some students even gravitate towards “hot” topics and tailor their work for maximum publishability (Horta and Li, 2022). In doing so, they can lose sight of the broader purpose of advancing knowledge.
In extreme cases, the relentless push for quantity over quality can lead to questionable research practices. Critics note that this climate tempts researchers to sacrifice quality for quantity. Some respond by slicing a single study into several minimal publishable units or by rushing experiments in ways that undermine rigour. In extreme cases, a few have even falsified data to meet expectations. Low-quality journals – often called “predatory journals” – have also proliferated in recent years.
Observers have linked this trend to the pressure to pad CVs with publications (Sutter, 2022). These tendencies directly threaten scientific innovation. Truly novel or risky research might be avoided because it does not guarantee a steady stream of papers. The core ideal of a PhD is to train researchers who push the boundaries of knowledge. But the culture undermines that ideal by driving students to treat knowledge production as merely a means to a publication end.
Teaching and holistic training sidelined
Yet, when publishing papers is treated as the be-all and end-all, other important activities often fall by the wayside. Anything that does not directly yield a publication seems less worthwhile.
Teaching is a prime example. Doctoral students who serve as teaching assistants or who design and deliver lectures gain vital pedagogical skills and experience. However, many now face pressure to minimise time spent on teaching duties.
Some supervisors explicitly discourage their PhD students from engaging in teaching or even in extensive coursework. They view these activities as distractions from research (Horta and Li, 2022). For example, one PhD student noted that their supervisor “won’t understand why you waste time” on teaching assistantships. The professor considered teaching “only value as chicken feed” compared to research (Horta and Li, 2022). When such attitudes prevail, new researchers enter academia with very little teaching experience or appreciation for education. This lack of training can undermine the quality of instruction in the long run.
Beyond teaching, other aspects of professional development can also get sidelined. Activities like attending workshops, doing outreach, or exploring interdisciplinary collaborations may be neglected if they do not immediately contribute to a paper. The result is a narrowing of the doctoral experience. Students become essentially research-output machines at the cost of developing into well-rounded academics.
In the long term, academia risks producing a generation of faculty with impressive publication lists but little exposure to teaching or community engagement. This outcome would weaken the university’s dual mission of research and education.
From collaboration to competition
A healthy research environment relies on collaboration, mentorship, and the open exchange of ideas. This is especially true for early-career researchers, who learn a great deal from peers and supervisors. However, if every student is singularly focused on maximising their own publications, a more competitive and individualistic ethos can take over. Doctoral candidates may start to view their peers as rivals rather than colleagues. They find themselves competing for first authorships, journal slots, and eventually jobs.
One study found that many doctoral students felt intense anxiety whenever they saw their peers publish more papers (Horta and Li, 2022). Instead of collaborating or sharing knowledge, students felt they must work in silos. Many believed they had to “work extra-time” to avoid being out-published by their peers. This relentless effort inevitably leads to stress and exhaustion. There are even cases of students blaming their supervisors for not helping them secure enough publications. The mentor–mentee relationship can become strained if supervisors and students alike treat the PhD primarily as a publication pipeline.
Further, an excessive focus on publishing can reduce engagement with valuable networking and learning opportunities outside one’s immediate research. Many students come to view activities such as interdisciplinary projects, industry internships or conference networking as low priority. Because these pursuits do not yield immediate journal articles, they are often sidelined under the current incentives.
In this way, the publish-at-all-costs mindset chips away at the collaborative culture of academia. It prioritises competition over cooperation. This shift can stifle the informal peer support networks that are especially important during the challenges of a PhD.
Pressures on mental health and ethics
The human cost of an unbalanced PhD experience is increasingly apparent. The pressure to constantly produce new results and papers can take a serious toll on mental health. Surveys of graduate students worldwide have found alarmingly high levels of psychological distress (Nature Editorial, 2019). Many report experiencing anxiety or depression related to their research workload and career uncertainties.
The publish-or-perish culture is a significant contributing factor to this distress. It creates a sense that one is never doing enough, that any pause in publishing could derail one’s career. This stress is not evenly distributed. Doctoral researchers with fewer support resources, or those from underrepresented groups, often feel the strain more acutely. This tends to compound existing inequities (Feder, 2023).
In such an environment, some students may resort to unethical shortcuts. University counsellors and research integrity officers note that intense academic pressure can blur moral lines. A small minority of students might even begin to consider practices like cutting corners in analyses or failing to give proper credit to co-researchers.
Outright scientific misconduct by PhD students remains the exception. However, the fact that fear of falling behind can drive even a few students toward such misconduct speaks volumes about the unhealthy incentives at play (Sutter, 2022). When mental well-being suffers and ethical standards stretch to breaking point, it signals that the system itself needs recalibration.
Towards a balanced approach in doctoral education
If academia is to thrive, the training of new researchers must strike a healthier balance. Publications will and should remain an important component of doctoral education. They are fundamental to the progress of knowledge and to the professional growth of scholars. However, they should represent a means rather than an end.
Encouragingly, some institutions and policy-makers have begun to acknowledge this. In China, several top universities have recently removed the mandatory requirement for PhD students to publish papers in order to graduate (Liu, 2021). Experts had argued that such rules were hindering collaboration and innovation. Instead of relying solely on publication counts or journal prestige as benchmarks, these institutions are exploring more holistic ways to evaluate PhD work. For example, they might assess a candidate’s overall research quality, their contributions to the field, and the competencies developed during the PhD.
International initiatives are reinforcing this message. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2012) and the more recent Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (2022) both urge universities to move away from crude metrics. They recommend valuing a broader range of contributions, including teaching, open-science practices, teamwork, and societal impact. In essence, institutions should not focus narrowly on journal publications and citation counts.
Adopting these principles in PhD programmes would allow students to distribute their time more sensibly. They could of course devote time to producing solid research and publications, but also engage in teaching, collaboration, and personal development without incurring a career penalty.
Ultimately, rebalancing priorities in doctoral training is not just about reducing stress on students. It is also about fostering better science and developing better scholars. A culture that rewards quality, integrity, and well-rounded scholarship will benefit academia as a whole. It will ensure that publishing remains a cornerstone of academic life without eclipsing its true purpose.
Wrapping up:
The imperative to publish is now deeply ingrained in academic culture. It undoubtedly plays a vital role in disseminating knowledge. Yet the experiences of many PhD students illustrate the pitfalls of this approach. Making publication the sole focus of doctoral programmes can ultimately do more harm than good.
An obsession with publishing at all costs risks turning the PhD from a formative intellectual journey into a mere counting exercise. It can dilute the quality of research, marginalise critical training experiences, strain professional relationships, and exact a personal toll on researchers. Academia ultimately suffers when quantity triumphs over quality.
Addressing this issue does not mean we should completely de-emphasise publishing. Rather, we must put it in proper context. By reforming evaluation criteria and nurturing a more balanced academic environment, universities can reshape the incentives for young scholars. The next generation of researchers should be defined not only by the papers they produce, but by the depth, integrity, and broader impact of their contributions.
References and further reading:
- Feder, T. (2023) ‘Global movement to reform researcher assessment gains traction’, Physics Today, 76(10) (October). Available at: https://physicstoday.aip.org/news/global-movement-to-reform-researcher-assessment-gains-traction
- Horta, H. and Li, H. (2022) ‘When publishing becomes the sole focus of PhD programmes academia suffers’, LSE Impact Blog, 5 December. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/12/05/when-publishing-becomes-the-sole-focus-of-phd-programmes-academia-suffers/
- Liu, J. (2021) ‘Leading Chinese universities axe publication requirement for PhDs’, Times Higher Education, 3 April. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/leading-chinese-universities-axe-publication-requirement-phds
- Nature Editorial (2019) ‘The mental health of PhD researchers demands urgent attention’, Nature 575(7782), 257–258, 13 November. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03489-1
- Sutter, P. M. (2022) ‘Why won’t academia let go of “publish or perish”?’, Undark, 16 June. Available at: https://undark.org/2022/06/16/why-wont-academia-let-go-of-publish-or-perish/