Do we really publish too much?
I think we do.

Can we stop publishing too much?
I'm afraid we -- as in, all scholars worldwide -- cannot.

Why? A personal https://twitter.com/pardoguerra/status/1361775836882370560

To be clear, I don’t think I publish too much.

Actually, I constantly *feel* that everyone, every single one of you reading this, publishes more than me.

I do wonder, however, if I’d feel differently were I not on Twitter.

Not only do I feel I do not publish enough, I genuinely feel I’m not productive.

Around Christmas I received an email from a renowned (and a highly productive) scholar, wishing me: “A productive New Year!”

I asked myself and I keep asking myself, what did he mean with that?

Often, at the end of the week I think about how I spent my time.

look back and all I see is time wasted. Emails, zooms, more emails, meaningless small tasks, occasional doomscrolling, watching cats on Instagram and, yes, some writing too.

But I should write more, I tell myself. I should PUBLISH more.

Why don’t I write more?
How can all these people write more than I do?
I don’t even have kids, what kind of excuse do I have *not to write more*?

Even as I am writing this thread, I keep telling myself “You should be writing, woman! What the hell are you thinking, wasting time like this?”

There is, of course, a difference between QUANTITY and QUALITY.

When I say I should write more, what I really mean is – I should be *better at writing*.

Which means: I should focus on writing high-quality stuff. To the best of my abilities, of course.

Quality BEFORE quantity.

But that’s easier said than done. I can think of several reasons why.

First, there are many scholars out there, junior scholars in particular, who are under actual pressure to publish MORE.

Some even under pressure to publish more in *specific outlets*. We all know this.

Second, the uncertainty of early-stage academic career prospects may mean that you need to “shoot in many directions” (for the lack of a better expression).

You do not know what will count tomorrow.
It may come down to two or three papers, but which ones?

Third, no scholar is an island.

Actually, despite the popular belief, we are highly sociable creatures. We like to work with others. Collaboration, the joy of sharing, friendships, all that.

That’s part of the game. THE BEST part of it, if you ask me.

What I am trying to say, I guess, despite you all making me feel super inefficient, I still love you guys. Even those of you I don't agree with.

Anyways...

This practically means that, the more you are “out there,” there will be more opportunities to collaborate with others

At least, that’s been my experience. And it’s hard to resist.

Fourth -- and we should not forget this -- the academic publishing industry has grown into such a terrible beast, feeding on the weaknesses of the academic enterprise, our uncertainties, insecurities, and all that.

So, yes, there is a lot of "noise" being published. In addition to all the junk. https://twitter.com/richardbenton83/status/1361778512412217347?s=20

I must stress at this point, that having quality publications does *not* mean publishing only in very selective journals.

That's just nonsense. A dangerous kind of nonsense.

The side-effect of all that noise, junk, even many decent papers and books that come out daily, that we keep saving for later, which bothers me I guess, is that all that *normalizes* the quantity-oriented hyper-productivity in academia.

It shouldn't be normal.

There are also other ways to collaborate than writing a paper together.

There are many things we can do together which are meaningful, in and beyond academia, that do not involve publications, citations, impact factors, indexes and all that stuff.

Because, and I will end with this on a personal note, the constant feeling of not doing enough, of *under-performing*, is what makes academia less and less appealing to me.

I can't think of a more fulfilling job than this.
But it's not like I am not working out alternatives.