Beyond Publications: Reclaiming Research for Territorial Impact

Beyond Publications: Reclaiming Research for Territorial Impact

Author: Monica Bianco, Ecosystems Cooperation advisor -CRF Italy

Abstract

In recent decades, academic research has progressively drifted from its original mission of advancing knowledge and fostering societal development. This drift is largely due to the hypertrophic focus on publication metrics as the primary measure of research value [1][2]. As highlighted by Hicks et al., “evaluation processes must support the quality, not merely the quantity, of research output” [1].

The “publish or perish” dynamic, initially conceived to encourage scientific vitality, has instead generated profound distortions in the way research is conceived, conducted, and evaluated [3]. According to Schot and Steinmueller, this creates “an innovation system oriented more to scientific production than to societal problem solving” [3].

Today, the centrality of publication output risks suffocating the laboratory, undermining experimental practice, and disconnecting research from real-world problems and societal needs.

This article critically examines the mechanisms that have led to the publication-driven distortion of research, the systemic consequences of this drift, and the role that a renewed culture of applied research can play in re-establishing research as a transformative infrastructure for territorial development.

The Mechanisms of Distortion: How Publication Metrics Reshaped Research

The centrality of publication metrics has triggered a series of predictable and self-reinforcing distortions.

First, acceleration of outputs: research is often fragmented into “least publishable units” to maximize the number of outputs in the shortest time [4]. As Kaur et al. note, “pressure to publish drives fragmentation of studies into salami-sliced publications” [4].

Second, dominance of literature-based studies: experimental research, particularly in fields requiring long development cycles, is penalized because it cannot guarantee rapid publications. This has led to a proliferation of literature reviews and simulations in place of original experimentation [5]. Heuritsch observes that “scientists increasingly resort to low-risk, rapid-output research paths” [5].

Third, multiplication of authorship: the pressure to publish promotes excessive co-authorship practices, diluting scientific responsibility and prioritizing quantity over quality [6]. As Evans and Foster point out, “co-authorship networks grow, but depth of collaboration often diminishes” [6].

Fourth, preference for safe topics: researchers prefer predictable, “publishable” topics over exploratory research addressing complex, high-risk problems [7]. According to Bornmann et al., “academic incentives rarely reward risky or interdisciplinary work” [7].

Finally, neglect of societal relevance: research increasingly marginalizes local or applied issues if perceived as less rewarding in terms of publication metrics [8]. Johnstone and Schot argue that “there remains a profound disconnect between research outputs and sustainability transitions needs” [8].

As a result, research activity is increasingly designed not to produce new knowledge or societal solutions, but to optimize positioning within academic visibility systems [9].

Systemic Consequences: Research Losing Ground to Societal Impact

The consequences of this distortion are profound and multifaceted.

First, there is a growing alienation from real problems: research risks becoming a self-referential system, increasingly detached from societal and territorial needs [10]. As reported by Digital Science, “the research system often values outputs over outcomes, prestige over practical relevance” [10].

Second, the weakening of experimental infrastructures exacerbates this detachment. As rapid publication becomes the dominant goal, long-cycle experimental activities — such as laboratory work, field trials, and real-world pilots — are progressively marginalized. Investments in infrastructures essential for applied research diminish, undermining the capacity to develop and test innovative solutions in real contexts [11]. Overton notes that “investment in experimental capacity lags behind publication growth” [11].

Third, this dynamic contributes to the devaluation of professional and technical disciplines. Fields historically oriented toward practical application, such as engineering, agronomy, medicine, and management, are increasingly pressured to conform to the epistemic standards of pure sciences [12]. According to the Academy of Management, “practice-oriented disciplines are forced into theoretical publication frameworks that ignore their applied missions” [12].

Finally, the cumulative effect of these distortions leads to a loss of public trust. Citizens and local communities increasingly perceive research as disconnected from their needs, fostering skepticism towards scientific institutions and weakening the social legitimacy of the academic enterprise [13]. Bornmann emphasizes that “metrics-driven research risks losing public confidence and societal relevance” [13].

Applied Research and Territorial Impact: A Necessary Reorientation

To reclaim research for territorial impact, a profound rebalancing of the knowledge production ecosystem is necessary.

On the one hand, fundamental research must continue to advance knowledge independently, pursuing new conceptual frontiers and expanding the boundaries of human understanding. Its autonomy and long-term perspective are indispensable for the vitality of the scientific enterprise.

On the other hand, applied research must fully reclaim its historical and strategic role as a translator between scientific discovery and societal challenges [14]. As Schot and Kanger argue, “transformative innovation demands engagement with societal needs, not just scientific excellence” [14].

Applied research plays a crucial role by co-creating solutions with local stakeholders [15], accelerating technological deployment through pilots and demonstrators [16], regenerating territorial systems [17], and rebuilding trust between scientific institutions and society [18].

By addressing tangible needs and producing visible benefits, applied research restores the social legitimacy of knowledge production and anchors innovation processes within territorial realities.

Far from representing a degradation of scientific ambition, applied research embodies the completion of science’s societal mission. It ensures that knowledge not only advances in abstract terms but also transforms the material and institutional conditions of societies, contributing to a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable future.

Conclusion

The hypertrophy of publication-centric incentives has turned research into a self-referential system, penalizing experimental practice and diminishing societal relevance.
Reclaiming research for territorial development requires a profound shift: valuing applied research, restoring experimental infrastructures, and redefining success based on real transformative impact, not only on publication outputs.
Only through this reorientation can research reconnect with its original mandate: to serve humanity, solve problems, and regenerate territories [19].

References

1. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
2. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). (2012). Retrieved from https://sfdora.org/
3. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554–1567.
4. Kaur, J., Ferrara, E., Menczer, F., Flammini, A., & Radicchi, F. (2014). Quality versus quantity in scientific impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.7357.
5. Heuritsch, J. (2021). Reflexive behaviour: How publication pressure affects research quality in astronomy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09375.
6. Evans, J. A., & Foster, J. G. (2011). Metaknowledge. Science, 331(6018), 721–725.
7. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2018). Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03977.
8. Johnstone, P., & Schot, J. (2023). Shocks, institutional change, and sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 52(1), 104–115.
9. Fast Track Impact. (2018). Ten essentials for transformative research.
10. Digital Science. (2023). Welcome to… Research Transformation! Retrieved from https://www.digital-science.com
11. Overton. (2024). Bridging the gap between business school research and policymaking. Financial Times.
12. Academy of Management. (2024). Business school and the pursuit of rigour, resonance and relevance. Financial Times.
13. Bornmann, L. (2014). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.7611.
14. Schot, J., & Kanger, L. (2018). Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Research Policy, 47(6), 1045–1059.
15. Fast Track Impact. (2020). The Research Impact Handbook (2nd Edition).
16. Research England. (2019). Guidance on Research Impact. Retrieved from https://re.ukri.org
17. European Commission. (2020). Towards a European Research Area for Innovation.
18. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendations on Open Science.
19. OECD. (2022). Promoting Research for Social Impact.