19 August 2025
Ashutosh Ghildiyal, Vice President of Growth & Strategy at Integra, is advocating for science communication as a solution to the current research integrity crisis. We must change the question from “What did you publish?” to “Who did you reach, and what did they understand?”
“Everybody agrees that the system is kind of broken and unsustainable. But nobody really knows what to do about it,” Nobel laureate Venki Ramakrishnan told The Guardian in July 2025, reflecting on the crisis facing scholarly publishing. Speaking as former president of the Royal Society, his remarks—featured in the article “Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics ‘overwhelmed’ by the millions published” (cookies/paywall) – capture a widely shared sentiment: academic publishing is grappling with complex systemic issues, yet there remains a striking paralysis about how to address them.
The Incentive Problem
Many current challenges in scholarly publishing stem from misplaced incentives that favour quantity over quality – in institutional rankings, career progression, and publisher revenue. This begins with how we assess research.
Since the open access revolution tied publisher revenue to article volume, publishers are incentivized to increase output for growth. This has created an environment where fraud flourishes and low-quality papers flood the literature with noise rather than knowledge. A recent PNAS study starkly illustrates this crisis: organized scientific fraud is growing at an alarming rate, with systematic research fraud outpacing corrective measures. The study reveals that industrially-produced research papers from “paper mills” threaten to overwhelm legitimate science.
Papers have become an inflated currency. While they remain important scholarly records, problems arise when they become primary tools for assessment, rewards, and rankings. This drives researchers and institutions toward high-volume publishing, prioritizing quantity over quality.
The Real Test of Research Understanding
The true measure of research lies not in the paper published, but in the science communicated by the researcher and understood by the reader. Today, AI can generate papers, review them, and even read them—but what does this actually mean?
Anyone can now create research papers, articles, or reports with AI assistance. But can they explain their work in plain language using their own words? Do they genuinely understand their subject, or are they simply borrowing knowledge from AI—which has, in turn, borrowed from other sources?
This distinction between borrowed content and genuine understanding represents the critical test of research integrity. Can researchers demonstrate original insight into their subject matter? The difference lies between mere words and true meaning, between content and comprehension. Research integrity fundamentally concerns whether we have truly engaged with our work—and the best test for this is our ability to communicate it thoughtfully in our own words.
A Systemic Solution
Scholarly publishing involves interconnected stakeholders: researchers, institutions, libraries, publishers, funders, and readers. Meaningful solutions require collective action from this entire ecosystem, which must reward research communication beyond mere publication.
Institutions must lead this transformation by reshaping what they value, assess, and reward. If they continue evaluating researchers solely on publication volume or journal prestige, deeper issues will persist. Instead, science communication—demonstrated through researchers’ own words—must become essential to scholarly practice.
Current assessment systems reward paper quantity rather than understanding depth or societal impact. We must shift this conversation toward meaningful communication that extends beyond journal articles—which are merely necessary records in a much broader process.
For Academic Institutions & Libraries
- Revamp promotion and tenure criteria to require faculty to demonstrate impact through public lectures, policy briefs, and clear explanations to both expert and lay audiences—resulting in broader societal influence and stronger institutional reputation.
- Support researcher training with workshops on plain language writing, multimedia storytelling, and public engagement—enabling faculty to connect more effectively with diverse audiences and amplify the real-world application of their work.
- Embed communication metrics into annual reviews—fostering a culture of transparency, leading to greater public trust and increased cross-sector collaboration.
- Develop comprehensive institutional repositories that include video abstracts, blog posts, infographics, and other accessible formats—expanding reach and making research discoverable to non-specialist audiences.
- Advocate for open, inclusive access by working with publishers and faculty to prioritize equitable discoverability of communication outputs—supporting greater diversity of voices in the research conversation.
For Publishers
- Encourage authors to communicate their research in multiple formats—such as podcasts, explainer videos, infographics, and social media threads—leading to broader public reach and stronger reader engagement beyond traditional journal audiences.
- Integrate plain-language summaries and multimedia enhancements into publications—increasing accessibility for non-specialists and driving wider citation and discussion in non-academic spaces.
- Invest in professional science communication teams and multimedia strategies—positioning the publisher as a trusted bridge between academia and society, and expanding influence across sectors.
- Elevate communication expertise to the same institutional level as editorial and peer review—ensuring dedicated budgets, specialized staff, and measurable impact metrics that enhance visibility and trust.
- Foster collaborations with journalists, educators, and community organizations—amplifying credible research stories and ensuring they reach diverse, relevant audiences.
For publishers, this presents a powerful opportunity to enhance scholarly communication in ways that will also secure their own long-term relevance. The publishers most likely to thrive will treat communication as core infrastructure, not a peripheral service. This requires investing in professional science communication teams, developing multimedia strategies that extend beyond academic silos, and cultivating authentic relationships with policymakers, practitioners, and the public. Communication expertise must be elevated to the same institutional level as editorial and peer review—supported by dedicated budgets, specialized staff, and measurable impact metrics.
Changing the Question
The real measure of success in scholarly publishing is shifting – from “What did you publish?” to “Who did you reach, and what difference did it make?” This reframing connects the value of research to its real-world impact and underscores the role of every stakeholder in making it happen. Publishers, academic institutions, libraries, and researchers must commit now to embedding communication as a core function – because the future of scholarship depends on it.
Note: The author, a non-native English speaker, used AI tools to assist with language polishing only; all ideas and arguments are entirely the author’s own.” (Note changed 12/9/2025 to clarify previous acknowledgement of use of AI Tools)
These views are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKSG.
This UKSG Editorial is taken from the community newsletter UKSG eNews, published every two weeks exclusively for UKSG members. The newsletter provides up-to-date news of current issues and developments within the global knowledge community.
To enjoy UKSG eNews and other member benefits become a UKSG member.