Synopsis
Our study examines how the publication patterns of early-career researchers (ECRs) differ based on metric-driven evaluation systems, compared to those of advanced-career researchers. We are using bibliometric data from OpenAlex database, where we are able to compare productivity trajectories across disciplines (social sciences vs. STEM), regions (Europe vs. North America), and career stages. This research aims to address whether ECRs’ publishing patterns reflect systemic pressures rather than individual choice, contributing to debates on ethical publishing and research integrity.
Abstract
Over the past two decades, the academic employment landscape has gone through a structural transformation, shaped by the implementation of metric-driven evaluation systems and the expansion of unstable employment conditions (Ravenscroft et al., 2017). The pressure of “publish or perish” culture in academia has emerged alongside rising job insecurity, particularly among early-career researchers (ECRs), who increasingly navigate fixed-term contracts, competitive funding environments, and uncertain career pathways. Several scholars argue that performance metrics do not merely measure academic work but actively shape research behaviour, often in ethically consequential ways (Hicks et al., 2015; Seeber et al., 2019). Concerns have been raised that such systems incentivise quantity over quality, fragment authorship practices, and normalise forms of productivity that may undermine research integrity and long-term knowledge production (Müller, 2014; Moore et al., 2017). Despite these debates, large-scale empirical evidence linking employment insecurity to observable productivity patterns among ECRs remains limited. This contribution aligns with the conference theme ‘Ethical publishing and dissemination’, covering topics which include ‘addressing publish or perish and job insecurity in an academic setting’. Furthermore, this research will address topics including research integrity, ethical governance of academic evaluation and structural drivers of research practices by ERCs. By examining how systemic employment precarity is reflected in publication behaviour, the study situates ethical questions within contemporary academia, rather than attributing responsibility to individual researchers. In the attempt to address these challenges, we ask the following questions:
RQ₁) How do publication productivity patterns among ECRs differ across disciplinary domains, specifically between the social sciences and STEM fields?
RQ₂) How do publication productivity patterns among ECRs differ across major regional contexts, with a focus on Europe and North America?
RQ₃) How do publishing patterns of ECRs compare to the available data on publishing patterns of advanced-career researchers in the same regions or study fields?
In this study, we aim to examine how the ECRs’ publication productivity differs across disciplinary and regional contexts, and to determine how it compares to the publication patterns of the more experienced, advanced-career researchers. In particular, our methods include desk-based research to determine the baseline values on research productivity, an the empirical study on the data available in OpenAlex database to compare the obtained results on a large scale. We determine the ECRs’ status using bibliometric career age (authors with career ages between three and ten years, model annual publication output among ECRs (averages on a regional basis), and identify productivity trajectories (compared to those of more experienced researchers) that may reflect differing degrees of structural pressure ECRs face within academia. The study will use open bibliometric metadata from OpenAlex that enables global and cross-disciplinary analysis without reliance on proprietary datasets. While employment contracts are not directly observable in bibliographic data, job precarity will be approximated using trends documented in prior research, including elevated annual publication intensity, short or discontinuous publication careers, frequent institutional switch, and concentration of output in venues not typically associated with long-term academic progression (Müller, 2014). Annual publication count will be modelled using negative binomial regression to account for overdispersion, with zero-inflated model tested to account for robustness. Analyses will be conducted across disciplines and geographic regions to assess heterogeneity in structural pressures. The expected findings include the presence of heterogeneity in ECRs’ productivity patterns. We expect that a subset of ECRs will be exhibiting sustained high-intensity output early in their careers, often accompanied by greater institutional switch and shorter publication continuity. It is expected that these trajectories will be unevenly distributed across disciplines and regions, indicating that structural conditions (i.e. career-advancement criteria), rather than individual preferences alone, play a significant role in shaping academic behaviour. Furthermore, due to pressures of career advancement, it is expected that the publication patterns of the ECRs will be higher than the average values for advanced-career researchers. The primary audience for this research includes ECRs, academics and practitioners engaged in academic and research integrity and higher education policy. This paper will be presented as a research contribution, with dedicated time for discussion during the allocated time. Some discussion questions will be prepared in advance. The reflections of the audience will be used to improve the final version of the research paper. The study relies exclusively on openly available bibliometric metadata and does not require ethics approval. No data will be collected during the conference session. A free, open database integrating AI for data mining, namely OpenAlex, will be used in the research.
Keywords: publish or perish, early-career researchers, academia, bibliometrics, research ethics
References
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431.
Müller, R. (2014). Postdoctoral life scientists and supervision work in the contemporary university: A case study of changes in the cultural norms of science. Minerva, 52(3), 329-349.
Moore, S., Neylon, C., Paul Eve, M., Paul O’Donnell, D., & Pattinson, D. (2017). “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-13.
Ravenscroft J., Liakata M., Clare A., Duma D. (2017). Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLOS ONE 12(3): e0173152.
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Malighetti, P. (2019). Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions. Research Policy, 48(2), 478-491
Acknowledgements
This research and author 1 were supported by EU Horizon Europe under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND grant No XXX (anonimised).