Publication pressure threatens the integrity of palaeontological research

Full text

Publication pressure threatens the integrity of
palaeontological research
Nussaïbah B. Raja (nussaibah.raja.schoob@fau.de, @mauritiantales) & Emma M. Dunne
(dunne.emma.m@gmail.com, @emmadnn)
This manuscript has been submitted for publication in The Geological Curator and
is undergoing peer-review. Please note that the manuscript has not been formally
accepted for publication and is as such a non-peer reviewed preprint. Subsequent
versions of this manuscript may have slightly different content. If accepted, the final
version of this manuscript will be available via the Peer-review Publication link on
this web-page. Feel free to contact us if you have any queries or comments; we
welcome any feedback that you may have.

Publication pressure threatens the integrity of
palaeontological research
Nussaïbah B. Raja1, and Emma M. Dunne2
1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Department of Geography and Geosciences, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
2School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Publications are the de facto currency of academia. Academics,
palaeontologists included, are often judged by publication met-
rics, which usually include the impact factor of the journal in
which they publish, the number of publications and the number
of citations. However, in the race to publish in high-impact jour-
nals and the pressure to increase research productivity, some-
times corners are cut, leading to an increase in scientific and
other types of misconduct. In this paper, we demonstrate how
ethical, and even legal, transgressions within palaeontology, par-
ticularly regarding the provenance of fossil specimens, are in-
herently related to the pressure faced by academic researchers
to publish “novel” studies in high-impact journals. We note
how papers in high-impact journals follow a consistent theme
of either showcasing novel evidence or methods, or describing
charismatic or unusual specimens, often dinosaur-related. We
examine notable recent examples of these papers that have been
linked to ethical and legal problems, which have ironically been
brought to light by virtue of the paper being widely publicised
as highly “impactful”. Finally, we discuss the importance of de-
veloping an ethical framework for scientific publishing, which
currently does not exist; only a handful of professional palaeon-
tological bodies, including societies and journals, have indepen-
dently developed policies to combat these issues. While the cul-
ture of “publish or perish” lingers in palaeontology, there will
be no incentive for more ethical research that better serves both
science and society to prevail.
publication pressure | research ethics | paleontology | academia | scientomet-
rics
Correspondence: nussaibah.raja.schoob@fau.de
Publication pressure in academic circles
“Publish or perish” has become the expression that describes
modern academic culture where academics, palaeontologists
included, face increased pressure to boost their research out-
put in the form of publications (1–4). Publications have be-
come the de facto currency of academia, however, not all pub-
lications are made equal: there are several factors that come
into play when deciding what gets to be published and where.
The journal impact factor (JIF; the yearly mean number of ci-
tations received by publications published in a given journal
over the two previous years) has been the staple of the aca-
demic publishing industry since 1975 (5). JIF is one of the
metrics used to rank academic journals, with journals such
as Nature and Science appearing at the top, and by exten-
sion, often being used as a measure of scientific merit or
quality (6,7). JIF is not only used to decide where to sub-
mit research publications but also by funding or institutional
committees, together with the h-index (a similar metric that
measures both the productivity and citation impact of a scien-
tist’s publications), to make decisions on jobs, promotions or
grants (8–11). Applicants with publications in high-impact
journals tend to receive better scores than those with publica-
tions in middle or low-impact journals, despite the fact that
the delineation between high, middle and low tiers is arbitrary
(11). As a result, early-career researchers are advised not to
focus their attention on low-impact publications as this may
affect their future job prospects where high-impact publica-
tions are typically one of the criteria used to judge applicants
(8,12,13). In many European and North American institu-
tions, a list of journals and their JIFs is usually provided to
hiring committees to evaluate candidates (14). Metrics such
as the JIF offer a convenient way to judge applicants, but are
inherently flawed with respect to quality and influence (12).
To start with, JIF was never originally intended to be used
to judge individual researchers, but rather to understand the
impact of a journal as a whole over a certain period (9). Gen-
erally, the number of citations of publications in a given jour-
nal follows a highly skewed distribution, with the number of
citations of a specific publication being generally lower than
the journal’s impact factor. As such the JIF does not fully
portray the number of citations a particular publication may
receive (15). While JIF-free assessments exist, these have yet
to be established in the wider academic community (16).
Worryingly, this pressure to publish high-impact papers can
result in the publication’s projected “impact” trumping other
important considerations. Until recently, Chinese univer-
sities awarded bonuses to researchers publishing in high-
impact journals—a policy that is said to have incencitised
researchers to focus on quantity over quality, and to commit
malpractices such as plagiarism or citation inflation (17). In
fact, there is a positive correlation between the journal im-
pact factor and the number of retractions for any given time
period, i.e. journals with higher impact factors generally face
more retractions (18,19). The primary reason for retractions
in scientific disciplines over the last two decades have been
scientific fraud (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) or other
kinds of misconducts (e.g. fake peer review) (20). Pressure
to publish “novel” results in high-impact journals has previ-
ously been linked to decreased ethical standards (21,22), and
may explain how some authors place “publication prestige”
above other aspects of their work, such as research ethics and
legality.
The discipline of palaeontology is not exempt from such
malpractices, although retractions are rare—only five out

Fig. 1. The top 25 journals in palaeontology with their im-
pact factors and the percentage of indexed palaeontologi-
cal publications published within them. Based on data from
the Web of Science (using the following keywords in the
search: “paleontology OR palaeontology OR paleobiology
OR palaeobiology”). Abbreviations of journal names: J.
Vertebr. Paleontol., Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology;
J. Paleontol, Journal of Paleontology; J. Syst. Paleontol.,
Journal of Systematic Palaeontology; P3, Palaeogeogra-
phy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology; Pap. Palaeon-
tol., Papers in Palaeontology; Cretac. Res, Cretaceous
Research; Acta Palaeontol. Pol., Acta Palaeontologica
Polonica; Quat. Int., Quaternary Inter national; J. Hum.
Evol., Journal of Human Evolution; Swiss J. Palaeontol.,
Swiss Journal of Palaeontology; Hist. Biol., Historical Bi-
ology; Palaeontol. Electron., Palaeontologia Electronica;
Zool J Linnean Soc, Zoological Journal of the Linnean So-
ciety; Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol., Review of Palaeobotany
and Palynology; C R Palevol, Comptes Rendus Palevol.
of 23,000 publications were retracted during the period
1990–2021, three of which were published in Nature and
one in PNAS, according to PubMed.gov. Despite the rarity
of retractions in palaeontology, several publications in high-
impact journals have actually increased the visibility of cer-
tain malpractices that occur within the discipline of palaeon-
tology (23). In this paper, we demonstrate how ethical, and
even legal, transgressions within palaeontology are inher-
ently related to the pressure faced by academic researchers
to publish “novel” studies in high-impact journals.
Publication trends in palaeontology
Traditionally, palaeontological research has focused on the
discovery, description, and form and function of fossil or-
ganisms. In more recent decades, palaeontological research
has shifted to also encompass broader scale macroevolu-
tionary and palaeobiological analyses of diversity, evolu-
tion and extinction through deep-time, particularly following
the computational work of David Raup and Jack Sepkoski
(24,25). Palaeontological research is most often published
in palaeontology-specific journals, for example Journal of
Vertebrate Paleontology and Palaeontology (Fig. 1). These
journals, while they publish a wide range of palaeontologi-
cal research from species-specific taxonomic descriptions to
broadscale macroevolutionary studies, typically have a JIF
of less than 5 and may be considered “low-impact” jour-
nals (Fig. 1). On the other hand, palaeontological studies
published in journals with the highest JIFs, i.e. Nature and
Science, are most likely to document a newly-acquired fos-
sil specimen or uncover “new evidence” of some aspects of
a group’s evolutionary history, as illustrated by the titles of
these publications (Fig. 2), which reflect their editorial crite-
ria to publish on “outstanding” or “influential” scientific top-
ics (26,27). Unsurprisingly, the most “popular” papers in
these high-impact journals are on dinosaur specimens, as re-
flected in the number of social media posts and media reports
based on these publications (Fig. 3). This is unsurprising
given that they are one of the most famous groups of an-
cient animals among scientific and non-scientific audiences
alike (28). However, the winning combination in terms of
popularity comes in the form of dinosaur related specimens
preserved in amber (Fig. 3), particularly amber from Kachin
State, in the northern region of Myanmar. One particular pub-
lication in Nature Communications that described the feeding
behaviour of insects on dinosaur feathers (29) was picked up
by 68 media outlets in multiple countries, and was shared by
more than 500 users on Twitter as of May 2021. However,
as discussed further in the next section, not all press is good
press. The popularity of some high-impact publications in
the media has led to the exposure of certain ethical and legal
transgressions (30).
As the prestige of an academic journal depends, at least
partly, on how often the research articles it publishes are
cited, “novel” or surprising scientific findings are viewed as
more desirable by journals (7). This publication bias is per-
vasive across all scientific disciplines (7,31), but is especially
prevalent in highly competitive fields (32). In palaeontol-
ogy, there is a pressure to publish in high-impact journals
such as Science,Nature, and PNAS, but only a small pro-
portion of palaeontological studies appear in these journals
(Fig. 1). The quest for novelty in scientific studies can not
only encourage authors to commit various transgressions, but
is also a major obstacle to addressing gaps in the literature.
In palaeontology, this translates to the increasing rarity of
classic taxonomic and systematic work i.e. the description
and classification of species, especially of less “charismatic”
organisms. This work is essential for nearly all studies in
palaeontology, as well as natural sciences more broadly, since
species are fundamental units in analyses of evolution, diver-
sity, and extinction (33,34). Taxonomy and systematics pa-
Raja et al. | Publication pressure in palaeontology EarthArxiv | 3

Fig. 2. Word cloud of the top words used in the title of
palaeontological publications in the Springer Nature group
and Science journals published during the period Decem-
ber 2015 to November 2020. The size of the word rep-
resents its frequency, i.e. the bigger the word, the more
often it is used in article titles. Common determiners, con-
junctions and prepositions (e.g. “the”, “a” or “in”) were ex-
cluded.
pers are increasingly treated as obscure specialised publica-
tions, lacking the perceived prestige required for publication
in high-impact journals (35). In fact, JIF has been shown to
be inadequate for assessing taxonomic publications. In 2019,
the mega-journal Zootaxa, which caters for publications on
zoological taxonomy, was suppressed (later reversed after the
scientific community protested) due to the high proportion of
self-citations from the Journal Citation Report that publishes
statistics about journals including the JIF (36). Self-citations
can usually be a sign of artificial inflation of JIF. However,
given the nature of the field of taxonomy (i.e. the high num-
ber of specialists, and the fact that not many journals actually
cater for taxonomic studies), self-citations are not surprising
and sometimes cannot be avoided especially when references
to previous taxonomic work, often carried out by the same
people for a specific taxonomic group, are needed. As such,
JIF is not meaningful when it comes to determining the qual-
ity of these publications and instead may bring more harm to
taxonomic endeavours by sending the message that this ex-
pertise is not valued in science.
Ethical and legal transgressions in palaeon-
tology
Recent palaeontological studies describing new fossil species
in high-impact journals have highlighted a number of issues
involving ethics, legality, and reproducibility within the field
of palaeontology (23,30). In several cases, these publica-
tions involve violations of national fossil laws and the use of
fossil repositories that are not widely accessible to other re-
searchers. In the most extreme cases, these fossil specimens
have even been linked to human rights violations.
On 11 March 2020, a paper describing a specimen preserved
in amber from Myanmar, thought to be a bird-like dinosaur,
was published in Nature (37). The paper was retracted three
months later, on 22 June 2020 after Nature launched an in-
vestigation following the publication of a preprint (now pub-
lished in Vertebrata PalAsiatica) on the bioRxiv server by an-
other group of palaeontologists who reanalysed the original
computer tomography data and demonstrated that the speci-
men in fact showed lizard-like features (38). While the retrac-
tion itself was not the result of any apparent fraud (39), the
publication of this study brought an important issue further
into the spotlight: the controversies around Myanmar amber
(also referred to as Burmese or Kachin amber), particularly
its links to human rights abuses by the Myanmar military on
ethnic minorities in the northern state of Kachin, where most
amber from Myanmar is mined (40).
The issues around Myanmar amber had been widely known
before this 2020 paper was published (41,42). However, as a
result of this publication appearing in a high-impact journal
as well as on the cover of that issue (43), discussions around
these controversies were rekindled across the palaeontolog-
ical community. On the same day as the Nature paper was
published, an article covering the ethical issues with Myan-
mar amber was also published in the New York Times, fea-
turing one of the authors of the publication making a case for
research on Myanmar amber despite any ethical concerns due
to the scientific importance of this material (40). This has led
to more heightened debates about how such ethical, societal
and human rights issues should be handled with regards to
palaeontological research. In April 2020, the Society of Ver-
tebrate Paleontology released a letter addressed specifically
to journal editors calling for them to declare a moratorium
on all amber specimens acquired from Myanmar after June
2017, which coincides with the time that the military forces
4 | EarthArxiv Raja et al. | Publication pressure in palaeontology

276
171
119
7
461
294
198
9
256
166
118
6
1302
1046
832
10
Palaeontology
in general
Myanmar a
mber
Alt
m
e
tri
c
S
c
or
e
Alt
m
e
tri
c
S
c
or
e
P
o
s
t
s
T
w
e
e
t
s
F
B
Includes "dinosaur" in title
Does not include "dinosaur" in title
Fig. 3. Altmetric scores and the number of blog posts, tweets, and facebook (FB) posts (as of December 2020) belonging to all palaeontological publications (left) and those
on Myanmar amber only (right), published in the Nature group and Science journals during the period December 2015 - November 2020. The altmetric score is a weighted
score of the attention a publication has received in the news and on social media.
in Myanmar started their campaign to take over the amber
mines in the Kachin State (44). This letter was criticised by
several members of the palaeontological community (45–47),
but was also received positively by some journals such as the
Journal of Systematic Paleontology (48) and Acta Palaeonto-
logica Polonica (49), which are both popular palaeontology
journals (Fig. 1).
As the palaeontological community continues to debate
whether (and how) ethical issues such as human rights abuses
should be considered within the scope of research ethics, is-
sues of legality around fossils have been extensively docu-
mented e.g. Liston & You (50) and Meijer (51). Over the
last two decades, several countries, such as Brazil, China and
Mongolia have been cracking down on violations of their ex-
isting fossil laws that restrict or outright ban exports of fossil
specimens (30). Brazil has banned the export of fossils un-
covered on Brazilian soil for over half a century since 1942,
and since 1990 requires foreign researchers to work in col-
laboration with a local scientific institution. As such, when
the description of a new Brazilian fossil, Tetrapodophis am-
plectus, was published in Science (52), questions were raised
regarding its provenance, as the specimen was reportedly
reposited in a private collection in Germany. The study had
also not involved any Brazilian researchers or institutions,
and a legal investigation was launched (51–53). More re-
cently, a Brazilian dinosaur specimen named “Ubirajara ju-
batus”, which was described in a publication in Cretaceous
Research on 13 December 2020 came under scrutiny for sim-
ilar reasons, and was temporarily retracted (and remains re-
tracted at the time of writing) while an investigation is under-
way (54). Another controversial specimen, this time a ray-
like shark specimen from Mexico named Aquilolamna milar-
cae, was published in Science in March 2021 (55). This fossil
sparked controversies because it had been purchased and, at
the time of its publication, was being housed in a private col-
lection (until a new museum is built). Both the purchase of
fossil material and housing fossils in private collections are
prohibited under Mexican fossil laws (30,56). After the ini-
tial publication, the authors resolved both issues, firstly by
moving the specimen to a museum where it will apparently
be accessible to other researchers (again, until the new mu-
seum is ready) (57) and secondly, by removing information
about the specimen having been purchased to the supplemen-
tary materials (58), likely in an attempt to disguise this viola-
tion (30).
Myanmar amber is also controlled by the national legisla-
ture, but loopholes in the law can and do allow for rampant
exploitation. Any fossil specimen leaving Myanmar (e.g.
for study or temporary display) requires permission from the
necessary authorities and cannot be marketed according to
the 1957 Antiquities Act, revised as the The Protection and
Preservation of Antique Objects Law in 2015 (23). Amber
is classified as a gemstone under the Myanmar Gemstone
Law and thus can be sold and exported with the appropriate
permits. However, neither the Antique Objects Law nor the
Gemstone Law addresses the presence of fossils in amber,
leaving the acquisition of amber specimens with fossil in-
clusions within a so far unaddressed complex legal greyzone
(23). In many circumstances, this legal loophole is used by
researchers to affirm that their amber specimens were legally
acquired and that no legal issues exist with regards to Myan-
mar amber specimens (23,40,42). However, until this is
Raja et al. | Publication pressure in palaeontology EarthArxiv | 5

addressed specifically by the Myanmar government - a very
difficult feat given the military coup in the country in Febru-
ary 2021 - researchers remain liable for not abiding to na-
tional fossil laws in Myanmar whose penalties include fines
and even imprisonment. Until a legal precedent is set, re-
searchers should thus abide by national laws regarding fos-
sils, which state that specimens must be reported to the au-
thorities and reposited in a national repository, or if being
exported for study or display, a permit should be acquired.
Towards building an ethical framework
Research ethics are not new to palaeontology. Palaeontolo-
gists, like other scientific researchers, have a responsibility to
uphold certain ethical requirements during their research to
avoid scientific misconduct. However, what is unclear is what
falls under the term “scientific misconduct” within palaeon-
tology. While falsified research or plagiarism unanimously
would come under this umbrella, other considerations such as
socioeconomic and political issues are less definitive. Many
professional societies, such as the Paleontological Society
and the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology now have codes
of conduct that their members must abide by, covering pro-
fessional and personal conduct as well as the provenance of
fossil material, among other considerations (59,60). How-
ever, these societies seem to be among the very few that have
such policies for their members. It must also be noted that
these professional societies operate on an honour system and
cannot legally enforce these policies.
Similarly, many journals have ethical considerations for their
authors, usually informed by, but not restricted to, the Com-
mittee of Publication Ethics (COPE), whose aim is to edu-
cate and support publishers and editors on publication ethics
(61). As of 16 May 2021, only a handful of palaeontological
journals, including Cretaceous Research,Palaeontology and
the Swiss Journal of Palaeontology and broader (and high-
impact) journals including Nature and Science are members
of COPE. However, the COPE’s core practices only cover
ethical issues when the subject of research requires ethical
considerations, such as research on animal or human sub-
jects, but not when research is linked to human rights abuses
(unrelated to the subject of research) or for matters of le-
gality. Many palaeontological journals however have their
own editorial policies, at least regarding the latter. For ex-
ample Palaeontology and Papers in Palaeontology require
“clear provenance information to ensure full transparency of
the research methods” and that specimens collected “from
protected sites should include information regarding the req-
uisite permission obtained” (62). The journals Journal of
Vertebrate Paleontology and Journal of Systematic Palaeon-
tology explicitly state that they do not accept manuscripts
based on specimens in amber from Myanmar (44,48). Edi-
torial policies at Cretaceous Research state that “fossil mate-
rial of uncertain or dubious provenance will not be accepted
for publication” (63). This points to the fact that these poli-
cies are being individually developed without any central eth-
ical framework across the discipline. In the case of Creta-
ceous Research, these policies are not being upheld, judg-
ing by the number of publications on Myanmar amber that
have appeared in this journal (54 in 2021 as of 16 May 2021,
based on a search using the keywords “Myanmar amber OR
burmese amber OR kachin amber”), even after the controver-
sies around the material was openly known. Until all journals
catering for palaeontological research enforce similar poli-
cies with regards to ethics and legality, there will always be an
avenue for work involving unethical or illegal research prac-
tices.
Similarly, research institutions and funding organisations,
just like professional societies and journals, should also be
committed to high standards of ethics. Palaeontological de-
partments and institutions should provide training to their
staff and students regarding ethical issues within the disci-
pline, especially as these become more well-known and ac-
knowledged. Palaeontology has long operated outside the
ethical lens, mainly due the nature of the discipline itself
which focuses on ancient life since the time before humans
existed. However, this does not mean that palaeontology
is in any way exempt from ethical considerations. The ex-
amples we provide here do not represent the full extent of
ethical issues within the field of palaeontology and geo-
sciences. Parachute science, lack of diversity, sexual harass-
ment, racism, ableism, and bullying are just some of the other
issues that need to be addressed by the discipline (64–70).
Often, the reaction of academic institutions to misconducts
committed by members of their staff is inadequate, especially
when these people tend to be in powerful and influential po-
sitions (71,72). Due to their competence in publishing in
high-impact journals and winning large grants, thus provid-
ing more visibility and resources for the institution, there is
considerable institutional support shown to these individuals.
Similarly, funders should be more critical of ethical and le-
gal problems persisting in palaeontology. Funding frequently
comes from national agencies through taxes. As such, in-
creased transparency from individuals, groups or institutions
receiving public funding should be a fundamental require-
ment. In the case of Myanmar amber, for example, public
funding may be contributing to armed conflicts and human
rights abuses in the Kachin State through the commerciali-
sation of amber, which is a known source of revenue for the
armed military forces inflicting these injustices on the ethnic
minorities in the country (73).
Eliminating the “publish or perish” culture
As long as the culture of “publish or perish” remains ubiq-
uitous in palaeontology, researchers will continue to place
publication prestige ahead of ethics and other concerns. Pub-
lication metrics should not be the primary criteria by which
scientists are judged for career progression, awards, and re-
search grants. An increasing number of publications include
spin or “science hype” in their titles, such as the overuse of
the words “new” or “novel”, to make them more attractive to
high-impact journals (Fig 2) (74,75). The pressure to publish
“novel” or surprising results in high-impact journals is also
6 | EarthArxiv Raja et al. | Publication pressure in palaeontology

likely to be exacerbated by the precariousness of scientific
careers (76), which is particularly pertinent in the wake of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic metrics also discrimi-
nate against marginalised groups that, on average, have fewer
publications due to systemic biases and other duties, such
as higher teaching load, higher mentorship load, and car-
ing responsibilities (77–80). These factors are rarely taken
into consideration during assessments for jobs, awards, and
grants. The culture of continuously seeking high-impact pub-
lications can also lead early career researchers to narrowly
focus their work on output that is most suited for these pub-
lications. Creativity in research, which can lead to innova-
tive methods and discourses, does not always have a place
in modern scientific environments (81). The academic job
market has become rigid and narrow, prescribed by the same
requirements made by different departments and overly fo-
cused on publications and grants, that academics have no
choice but to conform to these standards in order to secure a
tenured academic position, which is already limited in terms
of number of available permanent positions (82). Funders
also frequently have certain restrictions on grants provided,
such as the number of years after PhD for starting grants e.g.
the European Research Council (83). This system puts those
who might have taken a academic break for personal or pro-
fessional reasons at a disadvantage, and in some cases, may
even exclude them from any further academic pursuits. As a
result, many researchers are now turning to alternative non-
academic platforms not only to voice their concerns regard-
ing the current uncompromising structure of academia, but
also to engage in academic discourses in creative ways that
traditional academic jobs do not typically allow.
The social media platform Twitter has become a popular
space for academics to keep up to date with research, for
public engagement and to build support networks beyond
their lab group or department (84). As these topics are still
not considered a priority for many institutions or organisa-
tions, many critical conversations in academia, and palaeon-
tology specifically, are being carried out on Twitter, for ex-
ample, those related to mental health (e.g. #100Voices,
@PhD_Balance, #AcademicMentalHealth), decolonisation
and social justice (85–87), and diversity and inclusion, par-
ticularly in relation to fieldwork (e.g. @AbleismAcademia,
@AccessibleGEO, @aapigeosci, @GeoLatinas, #BlackIn-
Stem, @mothersinsci, @sacnas). Twitter is now even be-
ing used as an alternative to in-person conferences, where
“presentations” are in a series of tweets with accompanying
graphics and videos and the official conference hashtag (e.g.
#ExOncTC, #WSTC2, #PATC1) (88). Such alternative forms
of academic discourses prove that scientific communication
beyond publications not only appeals to academic audiences,
but can also be more effective in terms of public engagement
and learning (89). In fact, it is through social media plat-
forms, especially Twitter and Facebook, that many legal is-
sues within palaeontology have come to light. One recent
example is that of the illegal status of the “Ubirajara juba-
tus” specimen through the #UbirajaraBelongsToBR hashtag
on Twitter (30).
A researcher should be appraised on the quality of their work,
regardless of where it was published. This is one of the gen-
eral recommendations of the Declaration on Research As-
sessment (DORA; https://sfdora.org/), whose aim is to im-
prove the ways in which research and researchers are evalu-
ated. As of 17 May 2021, 19,612 individuals and organisa-
tions, including academic publishing groups, are signatories
of DORA worldwide. DORA also notes that research out-
put is not only in the form of scholarly articles, but also as
dataset production, software development, science commu-
nication, and impact on policy, which are all highly relevant
to palaeontology. Other factors such as openness and trans-
parency should also play a role in career advancement. This
is also imperative for PhD programs where there is an early
emphasis on publication number as a measure of success,
which can be detrimental to students’ wellbeing and career
satisfaction (13). While DORA will not fully solve the over-
reliance on JIF and other metrics due to the increased labour
for those performing the evaluations, the proposed alterna-
tives would place on hiring committees or reviewers (90), it
is nonetheless a system that would better serve both science
and society.
The increasing visibility of ethical and legal transgressions
within our field not only illustrates the fundamental flaws in
our academic system, but also how deeply these practices are
rooted in colonialism and how they have remained unchanged
for centuries (30), which benefits the already powerful and
privileged. As we have shown, these transgressions are also
inherently encouraged by the current system, which relishes
publications over other academic endeavours and where good
science is being equated with journal prestige. The ongoing
earnest discussions about issues of ethics and legality within
palaeontology have only highlighted just how much work we
have yet to do; there needs to be a systemic change in the way
that palaeontologists operate. Some journals and societies are
already ahead of the curve and have been implementing mea-
sures to address certain issues. As more and more organisa-
tions follow their lead, there will no longer be a tolerance for
these illegal and ethical transgressions. In this rapidly evolv-
ing climate, transgressors persisting with their unethical and
illegal practices will be the first to fall into the “publish and
perish” trap.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We sincerely thank Jeff Liston for inviting us to contribute to this volume, and Sarah
Greene and Rachel Warnock for invaluable discussions and feedback.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data and code for the analyses are available from:
https://github.com/paleoscientometrics/paleopubs2021
References
1. Seema Rawat and Sanjay Meena. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal
of Research in Medical Sciences : The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical
Sciences, 19(2):87–89, February 2014. ISSN 1735-1995.
2. David Robert Grimes, Chris T. Bauch, and John P. A. Ioannidis. Modelling science trustwor-
thiness under publish or perish pressure. Royal Society Open Science, 5(1):171511, 2018.
doi: 10.1098/rsos.171511. Publisher: Royal Society.
3. Gonzalo Génova and José Luis de la Vara. The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But
Raja et al. | Publication pressure in palaeontology EarthArxiv | 7

the Publish-or-Perish Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2):617–619, April 2019.
ISSN 1471-5546. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017- 0015-z.
4. Meredith T. Niles, Lesley A. Schimanski, Erin C. McKiernan, and Juan Pablo Alperin. Why
we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promo-
tion and tenure expectations. PLOS ONE, 15(3):e0228914, March 2020. ISSN 1932-6203.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228914. Publisher: Public Library of Science.
5. Web of Science. The History of ISI, 2021.
6. Wolfgang Glänzel. Seven Myths in Bibliometrics About facts and fiction in quantitative sci-
ence studies. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2(1):9–17,
June 2008. ISSN 0973-7766, 2168-930X. doi: 10.1080/09737766.2008.10700836.
7. Björn Brembs, Katherine Button, and Marcus Munafò. Deep impact: unintended conse-
quences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 2013. ISSN1662-5161. doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291. Publisher: Frontiers.
8. Mark Johnston. We Have Met the Enemy, and It Is Us. Genetics, 194(4):791–792, August
2013. ISSN 0016-6731, 1943-2631. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.153486. Publisher: Genetics
Section: Editorial.
9. John Bohannon. Hate journal impact factors? New study gives you one more reason.
Science, July 2016. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.aag0643.
10. David Moher, Florian Naudet, Ioana A. Cristea, Frank Miedema, John P. A. Ioannidis, and
Steven N. Goodman. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLOS Biol-
ogy, 16(3):e2004089, March 2018. ISSN 1545-7885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089.
Publisher: Public Library of Science.
11. John Tregoning. How will you judge me if not by impact factor? Nature, 558(7710):345–345,
June 2018. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05467- 5. Number: 7710 Publisher: Nature Publishing
Group.
12. Paula Stephan, Reinhilde Veugelers, and Jian Wang. Reviewers are blinkered by bibliomet-
rics. Nature News, 544(7651):411, April 2017. doi: 10.1038/544411a. Section: Comment.
13. Anne-Marie Coriat. PhD merit needs to be defined by more than just publications. Na-
ture Human Behaviour, 3(10):1007–1007, October 2019. ISSN 2397-3374. doi: 10.1038/
s41562-019- 0727-y. Number: 10 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
14. Chiara Franzoni, Giuseppe Scellato, and Paula Stephan. Changing Incentives to Publish.
Science, 333(6043):702–703, August 2011. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/
science.1197286. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science Section:
Policy Forum.
15. Vincent Larivière, Véronique Kiermer, Catriona J. MacCallum, Marcia McNutt, Mark Patter-
son, Bernd Pulverer, Sowmya Swaminathan, Stuart Taylor, and Stephen Curry. A simple
proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. preprint, July 2016.
16. Stephen Curry. Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research.
Nature, 554(7691):147–147, February 2018. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018- 01642-w. Number:
7691 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
17. Smriti Mallapaty. China bans cash rewards for publishing papers. Nature, 579(7797):18–
18, February 2020. doi: 10.1038/d41586- 020-00574- 8. Number: 7797 Publisher: Nature
Publishing Group.
18. Ferric C. Fang and Arturo Casadevall. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infec-
tion and Immunity, 79(10):3855–3859, October 2011. ISSN 0019-9567, 1098-5522. doi:
10.1128/IAI.05661-11. Publisher: American Society for Microbiology Journals Section: Ed-
itorial.
19. Nature. Why high-profile journals have more retractions. September 2014. ISSN 0028-
0836, 1476-4687.
20. Jeffrey Brainard and Jia You. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about
science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, October 2018. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203.
doi: 10.1126/science.aav8384.
21. Melissa S. Anderson, Brian C. Martinson, and Raymond De Vries. Normative Dissonance in
Science: Results from a National Survey of U.S. Scientists. Journal of Empirical Research
on Human Research Ethics: An Inter national Journal, 2(4):3–14, 2007. ISSN 1556-2646.
doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.3. Publisher: Sage Publications, Inc.
22. Marta Serra-Garcia and Uri Gneezy. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than repli-
cable ones. Science Advances, 7(21):eabd1705, May 2021. ISSN 2375-2548. doi:
10.1126/sciadv.abd1705. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Section: Research Article.
23. Donna Yates. Dubious dinosaurs, ambiguous amber, and fishy fossils: what creative com-
pliance and neutralization techniques reveal about palaeontological ethics. The Geological
Curator.
24. J John Sepkoski, Richard K Bambach, David M Raup,and James W Valentine. Phanerozoic
marine diversity and the fossil record. Nature, 293(5832):435–437, 1981. doi: 10.1038/
293435a0. Publisher: Springer.
25. David M. Raup and J. John Sepkoski. Mass Extinctions in the Marine Fossil Record. Sci-
ence, 215(4539):1501–1503, March 1982. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/
science.215.4539.1501. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Section: Reports.
26. Nature. Editorial criteria and processes | Nature, 2021. ISSN: 1476-4687.
27. Science. Mission and scope, 2021.
28. Riley Black. Dinosaur Culture. National Geographic, March 2014. Section: Science.
29. Taiping Gao, Xiangchu Yin, Chungkun Shih, Alexandr P. Rasnitsyn, Xing Xu, Sha Chen,
Chen Wang, and Dong Ren. New insects feeding on dinosaur feathers in mid-Cretaceous
amber. Nature Communications, 10(1):5424, December 2019. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.
1038/s41467-019- 13516-4. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
30. Juan Cisnero, Nussaïbah B. Raja, Aline Ghilardi, Emma M. Dunne, Felipe L. Pinheiro,
Omar Rafael Regalado Fernández, Marco A. F. Sales, Rubén Rodríguez-de la Rosa, Adri-
ana Y. Miranda-Martínez, Sergio González-Mora, Renan A. M. Bantim, Flavia J. de Lima,
and Jason D. Pardo. Digging deeper into colonial paleontological practices in modern day
Brazil and Mexico.
31. Kerry Dwan, Douglas G. Altman, Juan A. Arnaiz, Jill Bloom, An-Wen Chan, Eugenia Cronin,
Evelyne Decullier, Philippa J. Easterbrook, Erik Von Elm, Carrol Gamble, Davina Ghersi,
John P. A. Ioannidis, John Simes, and Paula R. Williamson. Systematic review of the empir-
ical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS One, 3(8):e3081,
August 2008. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.
32. Daniele Fanelli. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and coun-
tries. Scientometrics, 90(3):891–904, March 2012. ISSN 1588-2861. doi: 10.1007/
s11192-011- 0494-7.
33. Anzar A. Khuroo, G. H. Dar, Z. S. Khan, and Akhtar H. Malik. Exploring an inherent interface
between taxonomy and biodiversity: Current problems and future challenges. Journal for
Nature Conservation, 15(4):256–261, December 2007. ISSN 1617-1381. doi: 10.1016/j.
jnc.2007.07.003.
34. Lisa W. Drew. Are We Losing the Science of Taxonomy?: As need grows, numbers and
training are failing to keep up. BioScience, 61(12):942–946, December 2011. ISSN 0006-
3568. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.4.
35. Douglas Zeppelini, Ana Dal Molin, Carlos J. E. Lamas, Carlos Sarmiento, Cristina A.
Rheims, Daniell R. R. Fernandes, Elison F. B. Lima, Evandro N. Silva, Fernando Carvalho-
Filho, L’ubomír Kováˇ
c, James Montoya-Lerma, Oana T. Moldovan, Pedro G. B. Souza-Dias,
Peterson R. Demite, Rodrigo M. Feitosa, Sarah L. Boyer, Wanda M. Weiner, and William C.
Rodrigues. The dilemma of self-citation in taxonomy. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(1):2–2,
January 2021. ISSN 2397-334X. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01359- y. Number: 1 Publisher:
Nature Publishing Group.
36. Ângelo Parise Pinto, Gabriel Mejdalani, Ross Mounce, Luís Fábio Silveira, Luciane Mari-
noni, and José Albertino Rafael. Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack?
Royal Society Open Science, 8(2):201617, 2021. doi: 10.1098/rsos.201617. Publisher:
Royal Society.
37. Lida Xing, Jingmai K. O’Connor, Lars Schmitz, Luis M. Chiappe, Ryan C. McKellar, Qiru Yi,
and Gang Li. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Na-
ture, 579(7798):245–249, March 2020. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586- 020-2068- 4.
Number: 7798 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
38. Zhiheng Li, Wei Wang,Han Hu, Min Wang, Hongyu Yi, and Jing Lu. Is Oculudentavis a bird
or even archosaur? bioRxiv, page 2020.03.16.993949, March 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.
16.993949. Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Section: Contradictory Results.
39. Lida Xing, Jingmai K. O’Connor, Lars Schmitz, Luis M. Chiappe, Ryan C. McKellar, Qiru Yi,
and Gang Li. Retraction Note: Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period
of Myanmar. Nature, 584(7822):652–652, August 2020. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/
s41586-020- 2553-9. Number: 7822 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
40. Lucas Joel. Some Paleontologists Seek Halt to Myanmar Amber Fossil Research. The New
York Times, March 2020. ISSN 0362-4331.
41. Sam Cooley. Dodging rumour and insurgency: the hunt for Burmese amber goes to the
heart of Myanmar’s turbulent north, January 2017.
42. Joshua Sokol. Fossils in Burmese amber offer an exquisite view of dinosaur times—and an
ethical minefield. Science, May 2019. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.
aay1187.
43. Nature. Volume 579 Issue 7798, 12 March 2020, 2020. ISSN: 1476-4687.
44. Emily Rayfield, R., Jessica Theodor, M., and P. David Polly. Society of Vertebrate Paleon-
tology: Fossils from conflict zones and reproducibility of fossil-based scientific data., April
2020.
45. Jacek Szwedo, Bo Wang, Agnieszka Soszy ´
nska-Maj, Dany Azar, and Andrew J. Ross.
International Palaeoentomological Society Statement. Palaeoentomology, 3(3):221–222,
June 2020. ISSN 2624-2834. doi: 10.11646/palaeoentomology.3.3.1. Number: 3.
46. Carolin Haug, Jelle W. F. Reumer, Joachim T. Haug, Antonio Arillo, Denis Audo, Dany Azar,
Viktor Baranov, Rolf Beutel, Sylvain Charbonnier, Rodney Feldmann, Christian Foth, René
H. B. Fraaije, PeterFrenzel, Rok Gašpari ˇ
c, Dale E. Greenwalt, Danilo Harms, Matúš Hyžný,
John W. M. Jagt, Elena A. Jagt-Yazykova, Ed Jarzembowski, Hans Kerp, Alexander G. Kire-
jtshuk, Christian Klug, Dmitry S. Kopylov, Ulrich Kotthoff, Jürgen Kriwet, Lutz Kunzmann,
Ryan C. McKellar, André Nel, Christian Neumann, Alexander Nützel, Vincent Perrichot,
Anna Pint, Oliver Rauhut, Jörg W. Schneider, Frederick R. Schram, Günter Schweigert,
Paul Selden, Jacek Szwedo, Barry W. M. van Bakel, Timo van Eldijk, Francisco J. Vega,
Bo Wang, Yongdong Wang, Lida Xing, and Mike Reich. Comment on the letter of the So-
ciety of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) dated April 21, 2020 regarding “Fossils from conflict
zones and reproducibility of fossil-based scientific data”: the importance of private collec-
tions. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 94(3):413–429, September 2020. ISSN 0031-0220,
1867-6812. doi: 10.1007/s12542-020- 00522- x.
47. Joachim T. Haug, Dany Azar, Andrew Ross, Jacek Szwedo, Bo Wang, Antonio Arillo, Viktor
Baranov, Julia Bechteler, Rolf Beutel, Vladimir Blagoderov, Xavier Delclòs, Jason Dunlop,
Kathrin Feldberg, Rodney Feldmann, Christian Foth, René H. B. Fraaije, Alexander Gehler,
Danilo Harms, Lars Hedenäs, Matúš Hyžný, John W. M. Jagt, Elena A. Jagt-Yazykova,
Ed Jarzembowski, Hans Kerp, Phyo Kay Khine, Alexander G. Kirejtshuk, Christian Klug,
Dmitry S. Kopylov, Ulrich Kotthoff, Jürgen Kriwet, Ryan C. McKellar, André Nel, Chris-
tian Neumann, Alexander Nützel, Enrique Peñalver, Vincent Perrichot, Anna Pint, Eugenio
Ragazzi, Ledis Regalado, Mike Reich, Jouko Rikkinen, Eva-Maria Sadowski, Alexander R.
Schmidt, Harald Schneider, Frederick R. Schram, Günter Schweigert, Paul Selden, LeylaJ.
Seyfullah, Mónica M. Solórzano-Kraemer, Jeffrey D. Stilwell, Barry W. M. van Bakel, Fran-
cisco J. Vega, Yongdong Wang, Lida Xing, and Carolin Haug. Comment on the letter of
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) dated April 21, 2020 regarding “Fossils from
conflict zones and reproducibility of fossil-based scientific data”: Myanmar amber. Paläon-
tologische Zeitschrift, 94(3):431–437, September 2020. ISSN 0031-0220, 1867-6812. doi:
10.1007/s12542-020- 00524-9.
48. Paul M. Barrett and Zerina Johanson. Editorial. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 18
(13):1059–1059, July 2020. ISSN 1477-2019. doi: 10.1080/14772019.2020.1764313. Pub-
lisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14772019.2020.1764313.
49. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. News, 2020.
50. J. J. Liston and Hai-Lu You. Chinese fossil protection law and the illegal export of verte-
brate fossils from china. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 35(2):e904791, March 2015.
ISSN 0272-4634. doi: 10.1080/02724634.2014.904791. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2014.904791.
51. Hanneke Meijer. To collect or not to collect: are fossil-hunting laws hurting science? the
Guardian, July 2016. Section: Science.
52. David M. Martill, Helmut Tischlinger, and Nicholas R. Longrich. A Four-Legged Snake from
8 | EarthArxiv Raja et al. | Publication pressure in palaeontology

the Early Cretaceous of Gondwana. Science, 349(6246):416–419, July 2015. ISSN 0036-
8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9208. Publisher: American Association for the
Advancement of Science Section: Report.
53. Anastasia Christakou. Four-legged snake fossil sparks legal investigation. Nature News,
August 2015. doi: 10.1038/nature.2015.18116. Section: News.
54. Robert S. H. Smyth, David M. Martill, Eberhard Frey, Héctor E. Rivera-Sylva, and Norbert
Lenz. Temporary Removal: A Maned Theropod Dinosaur from Gondwana with Elaborate
Integumentary Structures. Cretaceous Research, page 104686, December 2020. ISSN
0195-6671. doi: 10.1016/j.cretres.2020.104686.
55. Romain Vullo, Eberhard Frey, Christina Ifrim, Margarito A. González González, Eva S. Stin-
nesbeck, and Wolfgang Stinnesbeck. Manta-like planktivorous sharks in Late Cretaceous
oceans. Science, 371(6535):1253–1256, March 2021. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi:
10.1126/science.abc1490. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Section: Report.
56. Rodrigo Pérez Ortega. Ethical controversy swirls around shark fossil from Mexico. Science,
372(6540):332–333, April 2021. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.372.
6540.332. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science Section: In
Depth.
57. Romain Vullo, Eberhard Frey, Christina Ifrim, Margarito A. González González, Eva S. Stin-
nesbeck, and Wolfgang Stinnesbeck. Erratum for the Report “Manta-like planktivorous
sharks in Late Cretaceous oceans” by R. Vullo, E. Frey, C. Ifrim, M. A. González González,
E. S. Stinnesbeck, W. Stinnesbeck. Science, 372(6539):eabi9203, April 2021. ISSN 0036-
8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.abi9203.
58. Romain Vullo, Eberhard Frey, Christina Ifrim, Margarito A. González González, Eva S. Stin-
nesbeck, and Wolfgang Stinnesbeck. Supplementary Materials for Manta-like planktivorous
sharks in Late Cretaceous oceans (Correction: 8 April 2021), April 2021.
59. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Member Bylaw on Ethics Statement, 2015.
60. Paleontological Society. Non-Discrimination and Code of Conduct, 2019.
61. COPE. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2021.
62. Palaeontological Association. Palaeontology: Information for authors, 2021.
63. Cretaceous Research. Author Information, 2021.
64. Tim Hall, Mick Healey, and Margaret Harrison. Fieldwork and disabled students: discourses
of exclusion and inclusion. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28(2):255–280, July
2004. ISSN 0309-8265. doi: 10.1080/0309826042000242495. Publisher: Routledge _eprint:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309826042000242495.
65. Rachel E. Bernard and Emily H. G. Cooperdock. No progress on diversity in 40
years. Nature Geoscience, 11(5):292–295, May 2018. ISSN 1752-0908. doi: 10.1038/
s41561-018- 0116-6. Number: 5 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
66. Riley Black. The Many Ways WomenGet Left Out of Paleontology. Smithsonian Magazine,
June 2018. Section: Articles, Science, Dinosaurs, Women in Science.
67. Riley Black. Queer voices in palaeontology. Nature, July 2019. doi: 10.1038/
d41586-019- 02113-6. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
68. Nature. Ban bullying in science, November 2018. Number: 7733 Publisher: Nature Pub-
lishing Group.
69. Nussaïbah B. Raja, Emma Dunne, Tasnuva Ming Khan, and Paulina Nätscher. The
Overlooked Realities of Sampling Bias in the Fossil Record. page 356351, 2020. doi:
10.1130/abs/2020AM-356351.
70. Natasha Dowey, Jenni Barclay, Ben Fernando, Sam Giles, Jacqueline Houghton, Christo-
pher Jackson, Anjana Khatwa, Anya Lawrence, Keely Mills, Alicia Newton, Steven Rogers,
and Rebecca Williams. A UK perspective on tackling the geoscience racial diversity crisis
in the Global North. Nature Geoscience, 14(5):256–259, May 2021. ISSN 1752-0908. doi:
10.1038/s41561-021- 00737-w. Number: 5 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
71. Meredith Wadman. Disturbing allegations of sexual harassment in Antarctica leveled at
noted scientist. Science, 2017.
72. Sharon Shattuck, Ian Cheney, and Manette Pottle. Picture a Scientist, 2020.
73. United Nations. Economic interests of the Myanmar military. Technical report, September
2019.
74. Kellia Chiu, Quinn Grundy, and Lisa Bero. ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A
methodological systematic review. PLOS Biology, 15(9):e2002173, September 2017. ISSN
1545-7885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173. Publisher: Public Library of Science.
75. Simon Gandevia. Publication pressure and scientific misconduct: why we need more open
governance. Spinal Cord, 56(9):821–822, September 2018. ISSN 1476-5624. doi: 10.1038/
s41393-018- 0193-9. Number: 9 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
76. J Giles. Breeding cheats. Nature, 445(7125):242–243, January 2007. ISSN 1476-4687.
doi: 10.1038/445242a. Number: 7125 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
77. Catherine Beaudry and Vincent Larivière. Which gender gap? Factors affecting re-
searchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Research Policy, 45(9):1790–1817,
November 2016. ISSN 0048-7333. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.009.
78. Melissa L. Aikens, Melissa M. Robertson, Sona Sadselia, Keiana Watkins, Mara Evans,
Christopher R. Runyon, Lillian T. Eby, and Erin L. Dolan. Race and Gender Differences in
Undergraduate Research Mentoring Structures and Research Outcomes. CBE—Life Sci-
ences Education, 16(2):ar34, June 2017. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16- 07-0211. Publisher: American
Society for Cell Biology (lse).
79. Herman Aguinis, Young Hun Ji, and Harry Joo. Gender productivity gap among star
performers in STEM and other scientific fields. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(12):
1283–1306, 2018. ISSN 1939-1854(Electronic),0021-9010(Print). doi: 10.1037/apl0000331.
Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
80. Mike Thelwall and Pardeep Sud. Greater female first author citation advantages do not
associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia. Quantitative Science
Studies, 1(3):1283–1297, August 2020. ISSN 2641-3337. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00069.
81. Katherine L. Van Aken. The critical role of creativity in research. MRS Bulletin, 41(12):934–
938, December 2016. ISSN 0883-7694, 1938-1425. doi: 10.1557/mrs.2016.280. Publisher:
Cambridge University Press.
82. Angelika Brechelmacher,Elke Park, Gülay Ates, and David F.J. Campbell. The Rocky Road
to Tenure – Career Paths in Academia. In Tatiana Fumasoli, Gaële Goastellec, and Bar-
bara M. Kehm, editors, Academic Work and Careers in Europe: Trends, Challenges, Per-
spectives, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International
Comparative Perspective, pages 13–40. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015.
ISBN 978-3-319-10720-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 319-10720- 2_2.
83. European Research Council. Information for Applicants to the Starting and Consolidator
Grant 2019 Calls. Technical report, European Commission, October 2018.
84. Esther K. Choo, Megan L. Ranney, Teresa M. Chan, N. Seth Trueger, Amy E. Walsh,
Ken Tegtmeyer, Shannon O. McNamara, Ricky Y. Choi, and Christopher L. Carroll. Twit-
ter as a tool for communication and knowledge exchange in academic medicine: A
guide for skeptics and novices. Medical Teacher, 37(5):411–416, May 2015. ISSN
0142-159X. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.993371. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint:
https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.993371.
85. Aline Ghilardi. Novo dinossauro brasileiro. Fóssil fora do Brasil. Só pesquisador estrangeiro.
https://t.co/WFHObE8aYR https://t.co/iiZvGBA3GI, December 2020.
86. Aline Ghilardi. "Aline, I’m afraid of being accused of practicing colonialist science with-
out being (or having been) my intention! What should I do?" https://t.co/4GzMxw8ZTU
https://t.co/zzreUC9Kzf, April 2021.
87. Yara Haridy. STORY TIME! Many of you may have read the @nytimes article by
@asher_elbein: https://t.co/iKppqMHX0D Some of you may want more context as to how
"normal" paleo fieldwork became a collapsing museum rescue mission AND case study in
how to #DecolonizePaleontology https://t.co/yYBX07E8os, March 2021.
88. Anthony Caravaggi, Agnes B. Olin, Kirsty A. Franklin, and Steve P. Dudley. Twit-
ter conferences as a low-carbon, far-reaching and inclusive way of communicating re-
search in ornithology and ecology. Ibis, page ibi.12959, May 2021. ISSN 0019-1019,
1474-919X. doi: 10.1111/ibi.12959. KerkoCite.ItemAlsoKnownAs: 2664561:AAN6ZH5G
2664561:ZZT8K3WV.
89. Charles G. Knight and Linda K. Kaye. ‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A comparison of academics’
and students’ usage of Twitterin academic contexts. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 53(2):145–155, March 2016. ISSN 1470-3297. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.
928229. Publisher: Routledge.
90. Seppo Ylä-Herttuala. From the Impact Factor to DORA and the Scientific Content of Articles.
Molecular Therapy, 23(4):609, April 2015. ISSN 1525-0016. doi: 10.1038/mt.2015.32.
Raja et al. | Publication pressure in palaeontology EarthArxiv | 9