mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The strain on scientific publishing

arXiv 2309.15884 ↗First posted 27 Sep 2023cs.DLcited by 17

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. Total articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science have grown exponentially in recent years; in 2022 the article total was approximately ~47% higher than in 2016, which has outpaced the limited growth - if any - in the number of practising scientists. Thus, publication workload per scientist (writing, reviewing, editing) has increased dramatically. We define this problem as the strain on scientific publishing. To analyse this strain, we present five data-driven metrics showing publisher growth, processing times, and citation behaviours. We draw these data from web scrapes, requests for data from publishers, and material that is freely available through publisher websites. Our findings are based on millions of papers produced by leading academic publishers. We find specific groups have disproportionately grown in their articles published per year, contributing to this strain. Some publishers enabled this growth by adopting a strategy of hosting special issues, which publish articles with reduced turnaround times. Given pressures on researchers to publish or perish to be competitive for funding applications, this strain was likely amplified by these offers to publish more articles. We also observed widespread year-over-year inflation of journal impact factors coinciding with this strain, which risks confusing quality signals. Such exponential growth cannot be sustained. The metrics we define here should enable this evolving conversation to reach actionable solutions to address the strain on scientific publishing.

Key facts. Cited by 17 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2023.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 13.

17 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024CodeRefine: A Pipeline for Enhancing LLM-Generated Code Implementations of Research Paperscited by 3
  2. 2025Agentic Discovery: Closing the Loop with Cooperative Agentscited by 2
  3. 2026Position: Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agentscited by 2
  4. 2026Multi-Persona Debate System for Automated Scientific Hypothesis Generationcited by 2
  5. 2025Why can't Epidemiology be automated (yet)?cited by 1
  6. 2025You Have Been LaTeXpOsEd: A Systematic Analysis of Information Leakage in Preprint Archives Using Large Language Modelscited by 1
  7. 2026Generics in science communication: Misaligned interpretations across laypeople, scientists, and large language modelscited by 1
  8. 2026What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews?cited by 1
  9. 2026An Axiomatic Benchmark for Evaluation of Scientific Novelty Metricscited by 1
  10. 2026Useful for Exploration, Risky for Precision: Evaluating AI Tools in Academic Researchcited by 1
  11. 2026F(AI)2R: Who Did What, and Who Checked? Verifiable AI Provenance as an Executable Skillcited by 1
  12. 2026Do Methods Support the Claims? Intra-Paper Verification for Peer Reviewcited by 1
5 more
  1. 2026Reimagining Peer Review Process Through Multi-Agent Mechanism Designcited by 0
  2. 2026MIRAI: Prediction and Generation of High-Impact Academic Researchcited by 0
  3. 2026AI SciBrief as a Gateway to Research: A Framework for Onboarding Students into New Research Areascited by 0
  4. 2026Scientific Knowledge Discovery in the Age of Large Language Modelscited by 0
  5. 2026Position: Let's Strengthen Verifiability If We Can't Enforce Reproducibilitycited by 0