The Absurdity of Scientific Publishing: A Reflective Look
Written on
Chapter 1: The Reality of Research Publishing
The journey of real scientific progress, much like a successful romantic encounter, requires a blend of careful planning and a dash of luck. As a weary, single medical student, I often felt fortunate when I managed to secure two satisfying dates in succession. Conversely, professional scientists are expected to conjure this kind of enchantment continuously. Academic institutions assess their research faculty not primarily based on the significance of their findings but rather on the volume of papers they publish in esteemed journals. This relentless quest for publication can often lead to mediocre or derivative research. Recently, Randall Munroe, the mind behind the popular webcomic XKCD, illustrated this predicament in a striking cartoon that resonated deeply with scientists and sparked a variety of adaptations tailored to different academic disciplines. This phenomenon evolved into a worldwide dialogue regarding contemporary research methodologies.
The cartoon, true to the essence of XKCD, is a straightforward black-and-white line drawing featuring a humorous twist. It categorizes 12 "Types of Scientific Paper" in a grid format. One title reads, “The immune system is acting up again,” while another proclaims, “I can finally prove my colleague wrong.” This clever depiction reveals that research literature, when stripped of its technical jargon, is equally vulnerable to redundancy, triviality, and petty disputes as any other form of communication. The simplicity of the cartoon provided a platform for scientists to both critique and celebrate their work simultaneously.
Section 1.1: The Meme Takes Flight
The concept was not only relatable but also endlessly adaptable. Within days, sociologist Kieran Healy crafted a grid version reflecting his field, with entries like, “This seems bizarre and problematic, yet it makes perfect sense when you’re underfunded,” and “I take a SOCIOLOGICAL perspective, unlike SOME individuals.” Epidemiologists joined in the fun, humorously noting, “We’re not sure what we’re doing, but here are some models!” Statisticians also contributed with quips like, “A new robust variance estimator that nobody really needs.” The biologists eagerly joined the fray with comments such as, “New microscope! Yours is now outdated,” while science journalists chimed in with, “Readers love animals.” A doctoral student even created a website to help people generate their own iterations. We reached a peak moment when a meta-meme was crafted to outline various academic-paper meme categories. Writer and activist Cory Doctorow praised this collective humor as “an insightful auto-ethnography — a blend of self-critique and humor that tells a meaningful story.”
Section 1.2: The Critique of Academia
The humor strikes a chord. “The meme resonates well,” states Vinay Prasad, an associate professor of epidemiology and vocal critic of medical research. “Many published papers lack purpose, do not advance any agenda, may be incorrect, are nonsensical, and are poorly read. Yet they are essential for career advancement.” The academic literature across numerous fields is often cluttered with superfluous work. I have long been fascinated by the notion that this unfortunate situation is almost inevitable, given the prevailing incentives. When you gather a group of intelligent, ambitious individuals and instruct them to publish as many papers as possible while still passing peer review… what do you think will unfold? Naturally, the system is manipulated: results from a single experiment are dissected into multiple papers, statistics are adjusted for more appealing outcomes, and conclusions are exaggerated. The most prolific authors manage to produce more than one scientific paper weekly, while those who struggle may resort to hiring paper mills to fabricate or duplicate work on their behalf.
Chapter 2: The Pandemic's Impact on Publishing
During the pandemic, the urgency surrounding COVID-19 further facilitated the rapid publication of numerous articles. Prestigious journals like The New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet historically limited their pages to large, costly clinical trials. However, during the health crisis, they began accepting reports detailing just a handful of patients at an astonishing pace. Consequently, many academic CVs were inflated. Scientists eager to maintain relevance started incorporating COVID-19 into otherwise unrelated research, as noted by Saurabh Jha, an associate professor of radiology and deputy editor of the journal Academic Radiology.
Over 200,000 articles related to COVID-19 have already been published, yet only a small fraction will ever receive proper attention or be applied in practice. Admittedly, it’s challenging to predict which data will be most beneficial during an unprecedented health emergency. However, the surge in pandemic-related publications has exacerbated several existing bad habits, according to Michael Johansen, a family-medicine physician and researcher critical of numerous low-value studies. “COVID literature mirrors the broader academic landscape: a few crucial papers amidst a plethora of works that should not be read,” he asserts. Peer-reviewed findings confirming the efficacy of vaccines, for instance, hold the potential to save millions of lives. On the other hand, obscure case reports or modeling studies attempting to forecast the unpredictable may garner attention temporarily but lack real-world medical relevance. Some subpar studies have even undermined the treatment of COVID-19 patients (hydroxychloroquine is a case in point).
I must pause to recognize my own hypocrisy. “Thoughts on how others are failing at research” is humorously listed as one of the article types in the original XKCD comic, and here I am reiterating the same sentiment with an internet-culture twist. Regrettably, since The Atlantic is not indexed in scientific databases, publishing this piece will not advance my academic career. “Everyone acknowledges that it’s a hamster wheel scenario, and we are all the hamsters,” remarks Anirban Maitra, a physician and scientific director at MD Anderson Cancer Center. He created a version of the “12 Types” meme specific to my own field: “A random pathology paper with ‘artificial intelligence’ in the title.” While Maitra has successfully navigated the publication landscape with over 300 publications, he admits he has no clue how to amend the system’s flaws. In truth, none of the scientists I spoke with could propose a viable solution. If science has become a punch line, we have yet to find a way to eliminate the setup.
Conclusion: Finding Joy Amidst the Chaos
Although the XKCD comic can be interpreted as a critique of the scientific enterprise, its widespread appeal lies in its ability to convey the genuine enthusiasm scientists experience when delving into their areas of expertise. (“I discovered an archive of old records! They may not be particularly useful, but still, how cool!”) Metrics of publication have tragically become a substitute for quality in academia, yet perhaps there’s a lesson in the fervor and collaboration inspired by even a webcomic. Surely, we can foster knowledge in a manner far superior to today’s endless cycle of black-and-white papers.
Benjamin Mazer is a physician specializing in laboratory medicine.