Summary
The idea of limiting academics to one or two first-author publications per year re-emerges regularly, usually as a response to an increasingly unsustainable research ecosystem. While academia claims to value high-quality, meaningful findings, many assessment systems still reward quantity, speed and visibility. As a result, researchers face pressure to publish frequently rather than thoughtfully.
This article explores whether such a publication limit could improve research culture, reduce low-quality output, and relieve pressure on editors and reviewers. It also examines other proposals — including encouraging non-academic outputs, valuing mentorship and collaboration, and reforming evaluation metrics — to understand which combination of reforms may help shift attention back to scientific quality rather than volume.
Ultimately, the question is not simply how many papers scholars should publish, but what kind of academic system we want to build: one driven by numbers, or one rooted in rigour, originality and genuine contribution to knowledge.
📖 Full Length Article (Click to collapse)
Publication Caps in Academia: Would 1–2 Papers a Year Improve Research?
Every few years, the suggestion resurfaces: perhaps academics should be restricted to publishing only one or two first-author papers per year. The idea sounds radical at first, but the more one considers the current academic environment — exhausted peer reviewers, overwhelmed editors, unrealistic productivity expectations and a constant flood of minimally novel papers — the more understandable the proposal becomes.
Proponents argue that a limit would encourage depth over speed, originality over volume, and thoughtful scholarship over rushed outputs. Critics counter that such rules might penalise early-career researchers, disadvantage certain disciplines and fail to address the deeper structural incentives that drive hyper-productivity.
Before deciding whether the suggestion has merit, it is important to understand why such limits are even being considered. The answer lies in the deep misalignment between what academia says it values and what it actually rewards.
1. Why the Idea Exists: When Quantity Overshadows Quality
For decades, universities have insisted that research excellence is evaluated on the basis of originality, rigour and contribution to knowledge. Yet the systems that decide promotions, grants and tenure continue to rely heavily on numerical indicators. Publication counts, citation numbers, h-indexes and journal impact factors remain central to assessment exercises around the world.
This creates a system where visibility is mistaken for significance, and volume becomes a proxy for value. Researchers internalise these incentives early, often during doctoral study, and continue to operate under the tacit expectation that a “productive” academic is one who publishes frequently.
The consequences are visible everywhere: journals receive too many submissions to process efficiently, peer reviewers are stretched to capacity, and an enormous proportion of published material receives little engagement because readers simply cannot keep up. The scientific record grows, but not always in proportion to genuine advances in knowledge.
2. What a Publication Limit Might Achieve
A ceiling of one or two first-author publications per year is intended to interrupt this cycle. If quantity can no longer serve as the primary measure of achievement, researchers may be encouraged to devote more time to conceptual depth, methodological robustness and clear communication.
Such a limit could also:
• slow the acceleration of submissions to overstretched journals,
• reduce the pressure to fragment findings into multiple “least publishable units”,
• give reviewers and editors breathing room to conduct more thoughtful evaluations,
• create space for researchers to read, reflect and engage more deeply with existing literature.
In theory, the change might help re-establish the idea that serious scholarship requires time — time to analyse, to think, to write, to revise and to understand the implications of one’s results.
3. Where the Proposal Falls Short
Despite its appeal, a strict publication limit has clear drawbacks. Disciplines vary enormously in their research cycles: an experimental physicist working in a large collaboration may publish infrequently but substantially, while a computational researcher may generate multiple distinct studies per year. Any universal restriction risks unfairly penalising certain fields.
Early-career researchers could also be disadvantaged. Many depend on a portfolio of publications to compete for postdoctoral positions, grants or faculty roles. Without changes to evaluation practices, a cap might make academic mobility more difficult rather than less stressful.
Moreover, some researchers might respond by shifting authorship patterns — seeking middle-author positions strategically or engaging in honorary authorship to maintain the appearance of productivity. Rather than improving ethical practice, a rigid limit could distort it.
4. Beyond Limits: Rethinking What We Reward
Importantly, the paper by Ortenblad and Koris proposes far more than numerical restrictions. They argue that addressing the sustainability of academic publishing requires multiple changes throughout the system. Among their suggestions are the following:
Encouraging non-academic outputs
This means ensuring that research reaches audiences beyond academic journals: policymakers, practitioners, industry partners and the general public. When scholarship is not evaluated solely by journal publications, researchers may feel less pressure to produce excessive academic articles.
Rewarding collaboration and support
Much essential academic labour — mentoring, peer review, methodological guidance, editorial service, data curation — remains largely invisible in evaluation systems. Recognising this work could shift academic culture away from hyper-individualism and toward collective contribution.
Exploring institutional authorship
In some scientific fields, papers are authored by large teams rather than individuals. Wider adoption of this model could reduce competition around first-author positions, although it may also obscure individual contributions if not implemented carefully.
Reforming assessment criteria
This is perhaps the most important change of all. If hiring committees, funding councils and promotion panels continue to rely heavily on metrics, researchers will always feel pressured to publish frequently. Publication limits will simply push the pressure elsewhere. The only sustainable solution is to reward what truly matters: intellectual contribution, methodological soundness, reproducibility, clarity and impact.
5. What Would Help Researchers Re-Focus on Science?
Any reform must recognise the diversity of academic fields and career stages. A one-size-fits-all rule is unlikely to succeed. Instead, the broader academic ecosystem needs to acknowledge that more publications do not equal better science. When speed and quantity dominate, both the scientific record and researcher wellbeing suffer.
Encouraging deeper, slower, more thoughtful scholarship may rely less on restrictions and more on re-designing incentives. When institutions explicitly value high-quality single papers, collaborative work and meaningful service to the academic community, researchers can make decisions driven by intellectual curiosity rather than performance metrics.
Conclusion
Limiting first-author publications to one or two per year is a bold idea, and it raises important questions about what we expect from academic researchers. On its own, the rule would be too rigid to accommodate disciplinary differences or early-career needs. Yet the discussion it provokes is valuable. It challenges a culture that equates productivity with worth and encourages reflection on what scholarly excellence should look like.
Ultimately, reforming academic publishing will require a combination of cultural, structural and evaluative changes. Whether or not formal publication limits are adopted, the goal remains the same: to move toward a system that values quality over quantity and genuine scientific contribution over easily counted output metrics.
For researchers preparing manuscripts and seeking support in producing clear, rigorous and polished writing, our journal article editing service and manuscript editing service offer expert assistance at every stage.
