Academics are praised for their output... when it's plentiful and of high impact. Rephrase: when it's published in high impact (factor) journals. The problem with this publish or perish culture is that is does not encourage quality research. More research papers = a need for more reviewers. Reviewers are already scarce. The result is poor quality revisions and the end result is poor quality research. Scientists constrained by this culture then feed the "mega-journals" - paying thousands of dollars per publication, to then be congratulated by their peers. Human progression relies on science. We must nurture the scientific process. The current framework does the opposite. Peter Higgs, who gave his name to this Higgs boson and was awarded a Nobel prize for the discovery, has said outright that he would not be productive enough for today's academic system. World-class science will be missed if this culture doesn't change. Reviewers should be paid, open-access publishing should not cost. More funding is ever-required, and the culture must shift to take pressure off rapid output to allow the brightest minds to perform their best work.