SEPTEMBER 12, 2025
Progress in science depends on far more than published papers. Peer review, mentoring, data validation, public engagement, and committee service all play a vital role in sustaining the research ecosystem. Yet most of these contributions remain invisible when it comes to career progression, funding, and recognition.
Two industries shape how public research is valued:
Publishing has become the dominant path to recognition, largely because it provides metrics - citation counts, h-index, impact factors - that influence hiring, promotion, and funding decisions.
But these metrics tend to reward established academics, replicate existing hierarchies, and disadvantage early-career, female, and minority researchers. Many institutions have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), acknowledging the flaws, but alternatives are scarce.
In the UK, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) allocates ~£2 billion annually. Preparation of the next REF, originally scheduled for 2029, has so far placed more emphasis on inclusivity, diverse outputs, and transparent processes compared to previous iterations.
Yet the REF is only conducted once every ten years, offering only a snapshot, not a continuous view of research contributions. And concerns remain about how to incentivise a more inclusive environment.
This leaves a gap: how can contributions beyond publications be recognised and rewarded more systematically?
At the same time, publishing itself is under pressure. The model has shifted from “pay-to-read” to “pay-to-publish,” often subsidised by funders. This has triggered an explosion in publication volume, overwhelming the system’s capacity for peer review.
As The Guardian recently observed, pressure to publish drives behaviours such as “running easier studies, hyping up results, or spreading findings across multiple papers.”