Speaking of ‘publish or perish’: Kelly-Ann Allen, writing in Nature earlier this year (paywalled, alas):
In my view, we could make academic life more rewarding by systematically scoring the underappreciated behaviours and conduct that researchers value. The product might be called the ‘G+ index’ — G representing generosity, giving and other ‘good things’ in academia. This index could either stand alone or complement existing citation measures.
Allen proposes a bunch of potential measures, with the proviso that the full spread should be decided by the academic community. And she thinks the G+ index should be mostly private:
Rather than creating a public ranking system, individual scores could be kept private, sharable with funders and institutions for evaluation purposes. Shifting control to individual researchers might go some way to reduce pressure to game the system.
It’s a thoughtful proposal, resonant with the great work of the HuMetrics group. There are also resonances with the longstanding effort (not too successful, alas) to promote alternatives to the GDP measure.