About that tweet, I see people listing all the reasons why they can& #39;t publish 75+ articles and books in 15 years. I understand why, but I also feel like it reifies a structure of aspiration which leaves intact the premise, i.e. ideally publishing as much is an end in itself?

Even taking account of field differences (and I don& #39;t think the actual number is the crux of the issue here), there are serious ethical concerns with such a publishing pace. When we list all the ways in which we can& #39;t meet up this standard we still uphold it as ideal-type.

And yes it might be a tenure metric at so-called & #39;research-intensive& #39; institutions, but that& #39;s more of a testament to them being more accurately described as & #39;bullshit-intensive& #39; institutions https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤷🏿‍♀️" title="Achselzuckende Frau (dunkler Hautton)" aria-label="Emoji: Achselzuckende Frau (dunkler Hautton)">

Shoutout to the books and articles who made me feel like they were written by people who actually cared, that there were actual stakes and weight to every word.