In a recent article for Nature, Kelly-Ann Allen (Monash University) argues that academia should move beyond “publish or perish” attitudes to value other metrics of scholarly success. The author asserts that publications are the dominant measure of achievement in academia, but that this presents a skewed view of the true scope of research. Allen writes that implementing a standardized index that evaluates other factors—including collaboration, mentorship, and public reach—would help to bring about systemic change in the postsecondary field. “Publication-based evaluation has shaped and sometimes distorted academia,” concludes Allen. “The community faces a choice: maintain the status quo, or experiment with new measures that better align with our values.”
