Beyond All or Nothing: Nuances in the Quantity vs. Quality dichotomy in scientific production

Abstract

This article addresses the controversy surrounding the debate on the dichotomy between the quantity and quality of publications generated by an author. In a context where the pressure to publish is increasing (publish-or-perish), it is questioned whether it is valid to judge the quality of a researcher based only on the number of articles published. A pedagogical effort is made to relativize scientific production as a multifactorial process in which aspects such as the area of knowledge, collaboration with other researchers, personal and work situations, and even the stage of the research career have a significant influence on the quantity and type of publications, while criticizing the growing tendency to establish simplistic comparisons and judge the quality of research based solely on quantitative metrics, which leads to the legitimization of unfair evaluation and accreditation processes and discourages research. Finally, this contribution focuses on addressing other urgent and fundamental problems in the field of research, such as the working conditions of researchers, disinvestment in R&D, and excessive bureaucratic burden.