Modern Academia: From “Publish or Perish” to “Monetize or Collapse”

Abstract

Academia needs money and it needs a lot and soon! Recent reports from many countries revealed that modern academia is grappling with a significant crisis in sustaining its core mission financially without burdening students with high tuition fees or relying heavily on governmental funders or private donors. This trend is more pronounced in countries like the UK than in the USA, with its strong university-industry partnerships (e.g., Silicon Valley), or in China and many European countries where universities are supported by their governments. However, with substantial cuts to government budgets for higher education, public funding is rapidly depleting, necessitating the urgent development of alternative funding models. For instance, the recent threats to some UK universities at the risk of closing whole departments and the huge loss in funding in the US to some universities and agencies [1] should serve as a wake-up call for all stakeholders to prevent academia from going broke. In these uncertain times, universities are asked to make further drastic cuts or merge just to survive [2].

The UK provides one example to gauge the true impact of financial turmoil on academia. For example, more than half of income of UK universities come from tuition fees, predominantly from international students, while a seventh of the income come from research grants (government bodies or charities) [2]. According to the UK’ Office for Students, and despite an income of tens of billions of dollars, 40% of England's universities are expected to run budget deficits this year, with more than 70 universities in the UK have announced staff redundancies, department closures, programs phasing out, and other forms of restructuring [3]. A similar alarming picture is also emerging in the US with research programs been closed in particular in domains judged not important by the new policy makers, as well as universities targeted with drastic cuts for not aligning with government's positions and policies [4].

Three traditional models are gaining momentum in the current climate to save academia: expanding partnerships with industry, promoting a new breed of academic entrepreneurs, and monetising academic expertise. These models, though not new, are being administered to academia at high pace and with a degree of urgency. For instance, over the past decades, the emphasis on industrial collaborations in grant applications for science and engineering disciplines has expanded significantly, growing from a few statements to full pages. As a result, new terminology such as market maps, technological readiness levels, cost savings, competitiveness, spin-offs, patents, and marketization has become commonplace in these grant applications. Likewise, universities are establishing more incubators and frameworks to encourage their academic staff to transform their ideas and innovative solutions into marketable products. Consequently, researchers are now grappling with not only the traditional “publish or perish” model but also a new “monetize or collapse” model. But is academia ready for this shift at high pace? And what are the consequences on academic ethics?

The first traditional model is underpinned by the university-industry technology transfer framework, one of the cornerstones of a knowledge-based economy. The rapprochement between academia and industry has been beneficial in boosting innovation and orienting research toward concrete societal needs with potential financial returns to researchers and their institutions [5]. This is why, for instance, the EU's recent multibillion-euro science program is focusing more on strengthening industry involvement to boost innovation [6], with the appointment of a commissioner for start-ups, research, and innovation to attract more private investment in research in Europe. Similar trends can be seen in other parts of the world, with the contribution of industry to academic research estimated at the level of billions of dollars in the form of research funds or scholarship programs.

However, there is a risk of this university-industry relationship becoming too cozy, which could undesirably favor the emergence of a profit-driven academic ecosystem dominated by bureaucratic managers and commercial funders, potentially negatively affecting the autonomy of academic research. This trend may also exert too much pressure on academics, including early career researchers [7], to attract as much money as possible from industry, yielding a risky emergence of unethical or unlawful practices. In this context, it has also been suggested that when the collaboration with industry takes too much of academics' time and effort, it might lead to a decline in research output [8] and a decrease in the quality of research in basic sciences [9]. This calls for consideration of the scale and intensity of university-industry engagement. For example, a previous large-scale survey in the UK revealed that faculty with industrial support tend to publish at higher rates and patent more frequently than faculty without industrial support, but those gains came at the expense of research ethics because some faculty with industry funds acknowledged that commercial considerations directly (and unethically) influenced their research projects [10].

The premise behind the second model is that universities create knowledge and form skilled workers, yet both outcomes are shared for “free” with many sectors including industry. Universities have been pondering for decades on how to retain talented researchers for potential financial returns, including nurturing the emergence of academic entrepreneurs. Academic entrepreneurship, traditionally meaning a “university spin-off,” allows the transformation of knowledge into products and processes and their commercialization and contribution to economic growth and innovation [11]. Academia has been striving to promote academic entrepreneurs by establishing incubators for new start-ups, where innovative solutions developed by its members can be commercialized. The process of transferring scientific innovations to the market is a multistage process [12], from idea inception, the recognition of idea's potential by customers, establishing a clear business model, and having a robust commercialization strategy. However, the success of this process requires substantial investments to support these solutions in a highly competitive market, given the significant time lag between academic findings and industrial/societal utilization of those findings [13]. This includes providing professional support through mentorship and networking opportunities, specialized training programs focused on entrepreneurship skills, and the necessary infrastructure and resources to develop and commercialize ideas and solutions. Additionally, policies that support academic entrepreneurship, such as flexible intellectual property rules and reduced teaching duties and administrative burdens, are essential.

Despite its appeal, this model may place pressure on academics who lack entrepreneurial skills to adapt to the new ecosystem, as a successful academic entrepreneurship must operate in a culture that rewards innovation and risk-taking. It also poses a risk of creating unhealthy work environments where academics may feel vulnerable or insecure about their jobs if they are unable to establish a successful track record in start-up creation and product commercialization. Furthermore, basic research and large projects with extended timelines may not attract significant interest from industrial partners. This model will also fundamentally change how academic performance is evaluated for hiring and promotion purposes.

Many academic services are provided to different stakeholders without remuneration. For instance, faculty are involved in many activities that do not always generate revenues for their respective universities, including involvement in the peer review process for for-profit publishers, drafting policy papers for diverse institutions and agencies, providing consultancy services to public or industrial partners, offering mentoring and professional development opportunities for a wide range of workforces, organizing events for the community at large, and actively engaging in the social media sphere. The traditional model promotes academic engagement to help companies and government agencies solve practical problems and advance innovation for the overall good of society [14]. Nevertheless, universities could monetize their faculty's expertise by charging for some of these activities. One example is to charge for-profit publishers for involvement in the peer review process [15], for example, in terms of monetary compensation for the time spent by faculty in peer review. Likewise, patenting faculty work and licensing it to companies as well as offering paid consultancy services would also provide other sources of income. Overall, universities can explore new ways to generate income from existing academic expertise.

Despite the appeal of this model, one cannot rule out real risks to open science. For instance, this model might reduce the appeal in the academic community for the development of free open-source tools and solutions that have been the pillars of open science and global knowledge sharing. Similarly, involvement in not-for-profit societies or other essential non-funded community engagement might be disregarded as faculty will have no incentive to give away their time and expertise for free.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.