ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why human connection is the true metric of research success.FEBS open bio · 2026Article
- Open access, unequal access: why publication fee waivers still exclude many researchers.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Scientific misconduct, questionable research practices, and research climate: empirical approaches to integrity problems.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- AI humanizers and the crisis of information integrity: implications for scientific writing.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The publish-or-perish (POP) culture in academic publishing has become ingrained for several reasons and may be a phenomenon that is difficult to erase simply because publishing remains the most visible form of recognition for scientists, who use both publishing and the recognition it confers to remain relevant while securing their status, employment, funding, visibility, and other benefits. Although scientific publishing has immeasurable benefits when it represents thoroughly conducted research or an integrated philosophy, when observed through the prism of POP culture, a negative connotation is associated with it. As the POP adage implies, if one does not publish, then one may figuratively and intellectually perish (i.e., publish and perish), and when this transcends to a literal plane, the adage publish then perish is born. At a more extreme level, and no longer driven by the desire to publish, the retraction of intellect or literature due to error or misconduct has diversified POP culture by adding a layered adage of retract and perish, where the latter may occur both figuratively and literally. In this essay, an attempt is made to identify several factors that may induce POP culture and the impact it has on individual careers, knowledge creation, the benevolence of scientific endeavor, and the well-being of science, society, and Humanity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41071313What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.