Science Publication Crisis: Overpublication or Underpublication?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The modern scientific publishing system is widely described as being in crisis. However, this crisis is often mischaracterized as a single problem when in reality it consists of two structurally different but interconnected failures: overpublication and underpublication. Both distort scientific progress, misallocate resources, and undermine public trust in science.

Understanding the distinction is essential for designing effective reforms—particularly decentralized and incentive-aligned alternatives such as those proposed by Science DAO.

---

Overpublication: When Quantity Replaces Scientific Value

Overpublication refers to the large-scale dissemination of scientifically unsound, low-quality, or even fraudulent work, often through predatory or minimally reviewed journals.

Key characteristics of overpublication

• Predatory journals that accept papers primarily in exchange for fees
• Minimal or nonexistent peer review
• Incentives aligned with publication count rather than correctness
• Pseudoscientific or irreproducible results presented as legitimate science

Systemic causes

Overpublication is not merely the fault of bad actors. It is largely driven by institutional incentives:

• Publish or perish metrics tied to career survival
• Grant systems that reward output volume
• Citation-based prestige economies detached from correctness

As a result, the literature becomes saturated with noise. Genuine research becomes harder to find, peer review capacity is overwhelmed, and trust in scientific outputs erodes.

---

Underpublication: When Valuable Science Fails to Reach the World

Underpublication is the mirror image of overpublication and is equally damaging. It occurs when scientifically valuable work is not widely disseminated—or not published at all.

Common forms of underpublication

• Rejection due to lack of institutional affiliation
• Exclusion for being too unconventional, interdisciplinary, or mathematically complex
• Publication in non-prestigious or non-open-access venues with limited visibility
• Complete abandonment of manuscripts due to excessive peer review barriers

Structural barriers

Underpublication is often invisible because it leaves no trace in citation databases. Its causes include:

• Gatekeeping based on prestige rather than merit
• Reviewer conservatism and risk aversion
• High submission costs (time, money, reputation)
• Journal monopolies controlling visibility

Many potentially transformative ideas never enter public discourse—not because they are wrong, but because the system is optimized against them.

---

Why Overpublication and Underpublication Reinforce Each Other

These two failures are not independent. They form a self-reinforcing loop:

• Overpublication floods the system with low-quality work
• Reviewers become overloaded and more conservative
• Review thresholds rise, worsening underpublication
• Valuable but unconventional research is excluded
• Researchers turn to predatory venues out of necessity

The result is a publishing ecosystem where bad science spreads easily while good science struggles to survive.

---

The Limits of Traditional Peer Review

Peer review is often presented as the solution to the publication crisis, but in its current institutional form it contributes to both problems:

• It scales poorly in the face of publication volume
• It is opaque and unaccountable
• It favors conformity and incrementalism
• It ties scientific validation to journal brands

This does not mean evaluation is unnecessary—only that journal-centered peer review is an inadequate coordination mechanism for modern science. See the idea of introducing “scientific marketers” using AI Internet-Meritocracy software to replace journal-centered peer review.

---

Decentralized Science as a Structural Alternative

Decentralized Science (DeSci) approaches the publication crisis from first principles:

• Separate scientific merit from journal prestige
• Enable open, continuous evaluation instead of binary accept/reject decisions
• Fund researchers directly based on demonstrated value
• Make high-quality work visible regardless of institutional status

Science DAO exemplifies this approach by focusing on open access, transparent assessment, and incentive alignment, reducing both overpublication and underpublication simultaneously.

---

Conclusion: The Real Crisis Is Misallocation of Attention

The science publication crisis is not simply about too many papers or too few journals. It is about the systematic misallocation of attention, credibility, and funding.

• Overpublication wastes attention on low-value work
• Underpublication hides high-value work from society

Any serious reform must address both sides at once. Without doing so, scientific progress will continue to be throttled—not by lack of ideas, but by the structures meant to support them.