The best documented reason would be the ongoing replication crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_cr

The best documented reason would be the ongoing replication crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Aside from that, focusing on quantity of papers published has incentivized publication of papers that don't significantly increase the store of useful knowledge to humanity, and function as a bit of a haystack to obscure actual useful results Additionally the 'publish more papers' culture creates other moral hazards, like: 1. Cabals of reviewers who work to help publish each other without regard to the validity of the papers published. 2. Making authors who work for a long time on tougher science have a worse scholastic reputation than those who work to publish a large volume of insignificant papers. 3. Incentivizing p-hacking and alteration of paper scope to salvage insignificant/negative findings.