Introduction
This new installment complements the article “Is Science Really Growing?: From Knowledge to the Fetish of Publication” (1), where the visible symptoms of the academic publishing regime are examined: the inflation of articles, distortions of hyperprestige, the fetishism of visibility, and the transformation of citations into refcoin, a symbolic currency that doesn’t always add real value. In this instance, a genealogical reading is proposed, not a chronological history, but an analysis of ideas, practices, and devices that made the “publish or perish” slogan possible—and naturalized.
The Origins and Evolution of the “Publish or Perish” Slogan
The origin of this slogan is not a folkloric trait of modern universities but the visible part of a logic that has shaped contemporary science. It intertwines the expansion of professionalized science, the commodification of academic prestige, and the establishment of a culture of perpetual competition. This logic does not necessarily enhance knowledge, but it organizes the field and determines who enters, remains, or disappears from the scientific landscape.
The phrase began circulating in Anglo-Saxon universities during the first third of the 20th century. During this period, science transitioned from an elitist or individual practice to a formalized, hierarchical endeavor increasingly dependent on external funding. With the expansion of university research in the United States—first under the influence of the Cold War and later with the university-as-business model—the need to distinguish between those generating “useful” results and those who didn’t emerged. Publishing thus became a way to demonstrate productivity, institutional loyalty, and scientific belonging; it also became a mechanism of exclusion, drawing boundaries and establishing hierarchies.
From Pragmatic Principle to Structural Mandate
What started as a functional practice evolved into a norm over time. With the establishment of academic evaluation systems, publishing ceased to be merely a means of sharing findings. In many disciplines, it has become a threshold of institutional legitimacy, a condition for staying in the scientific field and being recognized as a full member. Researchers transformed from solitary wise men to evaluable agents in a continuous legitimation race. The “publish or perish” slogan thus shifted from a pragmatic principle to a structural mandate, and was even accepted and internalized by those who experienced it.
The Academic Cannibalism
This is where what could be called “academic cannibalism” emerges. Publishing is no longer just about communication but occupying space before someone else does. Citations are used to mark territory, reviews to safeguard the purity of the field, and rejections to maintain symbolic scarcity of recognition. Even legitimate forms of dissent, like letters to the editor—which should fuel critical debate—often become spaces for personal vendettas rather than collective enlightenment.
In this context, the reader—that curious, critical, attentive subject—has also been displaced. Writing has become an act of responding to the algorithmic visibility logic that now often conditions various forms of scientific circulation, not to the reader.
Cracks in the System
However, this regime is not absolute. In recent decades, fissures, tensions, and forms of resistance have emerged, opening spaces for possibility. From the Global South, initiatives have shown that it’s possible to build a robust editorial ecosystem based on open access principles, ethical review, and social relevance (2). These are not total solutions but viable alternatives that sustain bibliodiversity as an epistemic value.
There are also multiplying formative experiences that encourage thinking about science from different coordinates. Instead of training mere reproducers of format, the focus is on forming critical subjects: those aware of the system’s history, biases, and limitations. The inclusion of seminars on critical epistemology, situated writing, and cognitive justice in many graduate programs indicates an emerging transformation (3,4). In these spaces, publishing is not just about achieving a goal but intervening in a conversation that demands context, meaning, and responsibility.
Rethinking Scientific Writing
Rethinking scientific publication is also rethinking writing. If science wants to regain its transformative vocation, it needs to look at the world from below and close-up: not just from labs but also from communities, territories, memories, histories, trajectories, and bodies. The focus should no longer be on quantity but on whether what is published matters beyond oneself.
The “publish or perish” slogan persists not because it’s fair but because it embodies a quantifiable idea of success. However, there’s nothing natural about this mandate. It’s a technical, historical, and political construction that can be dismantled, displaced, and transformed. Critiquing it doesn’t mean abandoning publication but recovering its communicative and collective sense.
Not all science fits into an article; not every truth needs indexing to have value. Today, more than ever, publishing should be an ethical and mature act.
References
Lozano R. Is Science Really Growing?: From Knowledge to the Fetish of Publication. June 7, 2025. El Economista.
De Sousa Santos B. Epistemologies of the South. Madrid: Akal; 2014.
Carlino P. Writing, Reading, and Learning in the University. Buenos Aires: FCE; 2005.
Castellanos Moya F. Situated Academic Writing as a Critical Practice. Rev. Educa. 2020.
*The author is a Tenured Professor in the Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNAM and an Emeritus Professor in the Department of Health Measurement Sciences, University of Washington.
[email protected]; [email protected]; @DrRafaelLozano
