From ‘publish or perish’ to ‘publish with purpose’: perspectives from young adults with lived and living experience on transforming academic publishing in patient-oriented research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This commentary article critically assesses the inclusion and recognition of young adults with lived and living experiences (YALLE) in academic publishing. Stemming from our involvement in a health research study, this analysis interrogates the disparity between the stated importance of YALLE contributions in health research and their actual recognition, specifically in academic publications, which serve as the principal “currency” in research. This tokenism limits the potential for their unique insights to substantially enrich the discourse and dissemination of knowledge. Set against a backdrop of systemic biases and structural barriers, this discussion underscores the persistent minoritization of YALLE, despite increasing nominal recognition within academic and health research communities. The commentary begins by placing the engagement of young adults in health research within its current context, showing that this inclusion often remains superficial, serving more as a symbolic gesture toward inclusivity rather than fostering genuine participatory research. It critiques the implicit biases within institutional frameworks that continue to shape research culture detrimentally, thus stifling the transformative potential of research led and partnered by young adults. The core of the narrative addresses the complex challenges faced by YALLE, including discrimination, underrecognition, and inadequate participatory roles in research processes. These issues are magnified by the prevalent “publish or perish” culture in academia, which prioritizes the quantity of scholarly output over the quality and inclusivity of research contributions. The commentary advocates for a crucial shift in academic publishing to genuinely appreciate and integrate the contributions of young adults. We call for a transition from a “publish or perish” model to a “publish with purpose” approach, which necessitates rethinking what is considered valuable knowledge and who is acknowledged as its creators. This shift aims to cultivate an academic culture where knowledge is treated as a communal resource, and publications are used as tools to advance societal understanding and progress. This commentary discusses how young adults who have direct personal experiences with health issues are often left out when their research studies are published in academic journals. Journals are important because they share new discoveries and ideas with scientists, doctors, and the public, helping everyone understand more about health problems and treatments. Unfortunately, even though these young adults offer valuable insights from their own lives and have many other skills to contribute, they are rarely included or given opportunities to be included as authors in the final published articles. The commentary calls for changes in how academic research is done. It suggests that research should not just be about producing a lot of papers quickly—which has been called “publish or perish” but should focus on making sure that everyone who contributes, especially young adults, is recognized and valued. This would make research more inclusive and the results more helpful and relevant to everyone in society.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».