Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

5-2026

Abstract

Concerns about declining research quality have increasingly been framed as “junkification,” whereby academic output expands in volume while declining in epistemic value. A recent paper by Rhodes and Linnenluecke (2025) attributes this trend to changes in publishing, arguing that research quality erodes as journals and publishers become increasingly oriented toward output quantity and metrics, driven by monetization. In 2009, Nobel Laureate James Watson remarked that scientific publishing in the mid-twentieth century was both easier and of a higher standard than today (Web of Stories, 2017). If publishing is much easier of late, as Rhodes and Linnenelucke (R&L) argued, then how could lower barriers to publication coexist with higher quality, as Watson claimed? R&L suggest five mechanisms: the expansion of publishing outlets, including the proliferation of journals and special issues; platform incentives, whereby publishers respond to submission pressure by increasing output; metric-driven evaluation that rewards volume over substance; marketization or commodification, with publishers portrayed as extracting value from academic labor; and the underrepresentation of the Global South in research, suggesting that uneven global participation contributes to low-quality research.

Discipline

Psychology | Scholarly Publishing

Research Areas

Psychology

Publication

Frontiers in Psychology

Volume

17

First Page

1

Last Page

5

ISSN

1664-1078

Identifier

10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1845947

Publisher

Frontiers Media

Copyright Owner and License

Authors-CC-BY

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1845947

Download

Share

COinS