A fascinating study by Daniele Fanelli and Vincent Larivière was published yesterday in PLoS ONE. It's a bibilometric study (i.e. about how scientists publish their research), and its main conclusion is that scientists do not publish more than they used to—or at least not by all measures. This conclusion is surprising, because it goes against the cynical-but-widespread belief that scientists nowadays try to publish as many papers as possible, with little regard as to whether these papers contribute anything.
Let's start with a basic fact: For decades, and year after year, the total number of scientific publications has been increasing exponentially. You can clearly see this in the figure below, taken from one of my previous blog posts.
So what drives this growth? Multiple things, probably. To start with the obvious: The world's population has grown, and the number of scientists has grown even more rapidly (i.e. it has become more common to be a scientist); as a result, scientists are publishing more papers in total.
But many people would point out another important driver of this growth: the "publish or perish" culture.
Scientists are under a lot of pressure to publish papers—if you don't publish enough, you're out. This pressure is relatively new, or at least it seems to have increased over time; and it stands to reason that scientists would respond to this pressure by publishing more papers. For example, whereas a scientist in the eighties might have worked ...