03/23/2026

Academic career progression: which activities and achievements should be rewarded?

by Irene Glendinning

Image credit: Author using Adobe Firefly

Background

The question I’m asking here is about academics and early career researchers (ECRs): when evaluating individuals for appointments, career promotions, and rewards (sabbaticals, pay rises, bonuses, etc.), are institutions focusing on the right criteria (Allen, 2025, February 25)?

A common requirement that higher education institutions value is the number of peer-reviewed journal papers published in high-ranking journals (Glendinning & Eaton, 2023). The reputation of the journal is used as a proxy for the presumed quality of the published article, which is not always an accurate way to measure. Some higher education institutions go further by setting publication quotas for academics and ECRs, for maintaining the status quo, and even for PhD students, as a condition for graduating (Grove, 2026, February 12). The amount of external research funding generated is another key factor that will certainly count towards career advancement. These, and other factors relating to research, are important to institutions because they are used in national and international rankings and institutional assessments, which can significantly influence institutional reputations (MacLeod, 2007; Mudur, 2025, October 13).

Some national governments have introduced initiatives, such as cash bonuses awarded to academics for specific categories of academic publications, aiming to boost the national reputation for high-quality education and research (Prest, 2017, July 24). In such cases the national policies can reinforce and influence institutional policies (Liu et al., 2026).

Unethical impacts from focusing on research and publication criteria

There are several impacts from research- and publication-based institutional policies relating to an academic career progression:

The growing culture of “publish or perish” is threatening the viability and sustainability of global academic publishing (DORA, 2012; United2Act, 2025). In recent years, the academic publishing industry (both commercial and non-commercial) has become increasingly affected by the growing volume of manuscripts submitted for publication, to satisfy the demands from institutions. Even though not all the submissions are of a suitable standard for publication, the editorial and reviewing processes need to be scaled up according to the volume of submissions, which, as I will discuss shortly, is difficult right now (Glendinning, 2025). The accompanying steep rise in the number of retractions of published papers, demonstrates that some poor-quality manuscripts were not identified during the editorial and reviewing process (Kincaid, 2022; Oransky, 2021a, 2021b).

In parallel with legitimate publishing sources, the demand from academics to publish has resulted in a substantial shadow publishing service industry offering ways of avoiding rigorous peer review and speeding up the interval between submission and publication. The shadow industry includes disreputable (sometimes called “predatory”) publishers and journals, essay mills, and a range of related services (including trading of fake manuscripts, authorship, citations) (Grove, 2026, February 12; Ibrahim et al, 2025). The increase in the number of submissions of poor quality and fake manuscripts (Abalkina, 2024) has been accompanied by (1) organised peer review scams; (2) hijacking and impersonation of web sites of legitimate journals; (3) organised and individual unethical use of Generative AI to generate fake manuscripts and research data; (4) rogue guest editors in reputable journals (Else, 2021; Eaton, 2022, September 20; Glendinning, 2025).

If institutions focus mainly on research activities when evaluating academic performance, then a wide range of other essential and highly skilled academic duties become seen as less valuable over time, including teaching duties, course leadership, supporting students, mentoring colleagues, conducting peer reviews, duties related to upholding academic integrity, and many more (Allen, 2025, February 25). Linking back to academic publishing, because of an increased number of manuscript submissions to academic journals, the industry depends even more these days on the willingness of academics to volunteer, usually for little or no pay, to serve as editors and peer reviewers. But if these activities are not valued as part of their rewards system, then fewer academics will be prepared to give their time to support academic publishing (Glendinning & Eaton 2023).

Research to find fair and ethical criteria for evaluating academics

Returning to the original question about whether institutions are focusing on the right criteria when evaluating academic careers and rewards, although there have been several publications about this topic recently, how to address the unintended consequences is still not clear. To find out more, I, Professor Sarah Eaton and Dr. Cynthia Vincent, have created a short online questionnaire, open until 7^th April 2026, which will take about 15 minutes of your time. We would like to hear from academics in all parts of the world to find out about experiences and capture ideas for ways to address this growing set of related problems.

If you are interested in helping us, please click on the link below to the questionnaire and share your views.

https://limesurvey.umontreal.ca/911963?lang=en

This research has been approved by the Ethics Committee for Research in Education and Psychology (CEREP) at the University of Montréal (project number: 2025-7471). The questionnaire is completely anonymous, we just need to know in which part of the world you are based. The findings from the survey will be included in a forthcoming book focused on this topic, which we expect will be published early in 2027. Please feel free to share this link with any of your academic contacts who are interested in this topic.

Because the questionnaire is anonymous, we can’t contact you after you submitted your response to say thank you for contributing, so thank you for reading this post and thanks in advance for helping us with this study.

References

Abalkina, A. (2024). Quality and policies for academic integrity: Challenges faced by Russian universities. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 953–973). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_174

Allen, K. (2025, February 25). Measure the deeds that make academic life fulfilling. Nature Vol 638, p. 861, World View. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00563-9

DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment). (2021). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/

Eaton, S. E. (2022, September 20). The link between paper mills and contract cheating: Systemic enablers and recommendations Panel on Paper Mills: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [online],  http://hdl.handle.net/1880/115253

Else, H. (2021). Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published. Nature, 8^th November 2021. Nature 599, 361. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03035-y

Glendinning, I., Eaton, S.E. (2023). Understanding and addressing drivers of corruption in academic publishing. Eaton, S.E, (Ed). Second Handbook of Academic Integrity, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_146-1, print copy, Vol II, Part VIII, chapter 83, pp. 1403-1422.

Glendinning, I. (2025). Addressing systemic forms of corruption affecting educational standards and quality. Handbook on Corruption in Higher Education, editors Elena Denisova-Schmidt, Philip G. Altbach, and Hans de Wit. Edward Elgar Publishing., https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035320240

Grove, J. (2026, February 12). ‘Toxic culture’ caused by REF pressure to target top journals. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/toxic-culture-caused-ref-pressure-target-top-journals

Ibrahim, H., Fengyuan, L., Rahwan, T. (2025). Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers. Nature, Scientific Reports 25:5480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7

Kincaid, E. (2022). Exclusive: PLOS ONE to retract more than 100 papers for manipulated peer review. Retraction Watch, 3rd August 2022.  https://retractionwatch.com/2022/08/03/exclusive-plos-one-to-retract-more-than-100-papers-for-manipulated-peer-review/

Liu, X., Luo, J.H., Yun, T., Lan, X. (2026). Enhancing Academic Integrity: Drivers, Barriers, and Governance Pathways in China. Higher Education Quarterly, Wiley, Vol 80, Issue 2, 20^th January 2026. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fhequ.70107

MacLeod, D. (2007). Funding Council to Investigate university league tables. The Guardian, Thursday April 19 2007.https://web.archive.org/web/20080721222723/http:/education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2061015,00.html

Mudur, G.S. (2025, October 13). Top scientists flag corruption in NIRF rankings, urge overhaul of research metrics. The Telegraph online, https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/top-indian-scientists-warn-nirf-rankings-encourage-unethical-research-practices-prnt/cid/2127477

Oransky, I. (2021a). Springer nature geosciences journal retracts 44 articles filled with gibberish. Retraction Watch, 28th September 2021. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/28/springer-nature-slaps-more-than-400-papers-with-expressions-of-concern-all-at-once/

Oransky, I. (2021b). Journal retracts 122 papers at once. Retraction Watch, 15th December 2021. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/15/journal-retracts-122-papers-at-once/  

Prest, K. (2017, July 24). Analysis of Chinese universities’ financial incentives for academic publications. British Council. https://opportunities-insight.britishcouncil.org//insights-blog/analysis-of-chinese-universities%E2%80%99-financial-incentives-academic-publications

United2Act. (2025). Phase 1: Report and Recommendations. OSF, October 16. https://osf.io/dhtzb/files/vzq78

After 34 years as an academic at Coventry University, UK, Dr Irene Glendinning is far from idle in her retirement: her many activities include supporting the European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI) and the Council of Europe’s ETINED.