In 2005, biologist Phil Clapham warned of the perils of not publishing one’s work. Failure to publish by scientists who work for years on a subject, he wrote, “is a scientific crime.” Speaking in 2018 from the arts and humanities field, I hold a different viewpoint. I find excessive publishing equally damaging to the discipline as not publishing at all. The well-known academic motto “publish or perish,” combined with an expanding press and the rise of digital publishing, is creating vast, fast-expanding and unmanageable bibliographies. According to JSTOR in 2010 alone there were 799 articles published on “Picasso,” 10,250 on “Art Market” and 12,143 on “Medieval.” Undoubtedly there will be some overlap in these results, and not all will be relevant to one’s research – I admit the term “Medieval” is particularly vague – but these numbers highlight the large amount of published work in a single year. It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep abreast of new publications, even if one’s research subject is relatively niche. As a result, many of us are unable to read either widely or thoroughly and we circumscribe our specialism to smaller and smaller areas. We may suffer from reading fatigue or from feelings of inadequacy and anxiety. In addition, the requirement to publish is so ruthless that, combined with professional uncertainty, it is driving colleagues away from academia. The phenomenon of quitting – which has even created its own academic genre, “Quit Lit” – has been recently investigated by sociologist Francesca Coin. Her paper was downloaded more than 3,000 times in the few weeks since its publication on the repository website Academia.edu, a rate that shows its topicality for the academic community. Coin speaks of a career academic who “works an unrealistic, 24/7 schedule chronicled by constant overload and frequent burnout. It acts as an individual enterprise whose desire for self-realization translates into being constantly frustrated by feelings of dissatisfaction and an unmanageable workload.” A possible answer to this professional fatigue is quitting, following the rebellious creed of French philosopher Albert Camus (1913–1960). In the words of Coin:

中文翻译：

---

呼吁行动主义

2005 年，生物学家 Phil Clapham 警告说，不发表自己的作品会带来危险。他写道，在一个主题上工作多年的科学家未能发表论文，“是一种科学犯罪”。2018年从艺术人文领域来说，我持有不同的观点。我发现过多的出版与根本不出版一样对学科造成损害。著名的学术格言“要么出版要么灭亡”，再加上不断扩大的新闻媒体和数字出版的兴起，正在创造大量、快速扩张且难以管理的书目。根据 JSTOR 的数据，仅 2010 年就有 799 篇文章发表在“毕加索”上，10,250 篇发表在“艺术市场”上，12,143 篇发表在“中世纪”上。毫无疑问，这些结果会有一些重叠，并不是所有的都与一个人的研究相关——我承认“中世纪”这个词特别含糊——但这些数字突出了一年内发表的大量作品。跟上新的出版物变得越来越困难，即使一个人的研究主题相对小众。结果，我们中的许多人无法广泛阅读或彻底阅读，我们将我们的专业范围限制在越来越小的领域。我们可能会感到阅读疲劳或感到不自在和焦虑。此外，对发表的要求如此无情，加上专业的不确定性，它正在驱使同事远离学术界。戒烟现象——甚至创造了自己的学术流派——“戒烟”——最近由社会学家弗朗西斯卡 Coin 进行了调查。她的论文被下载了超过3次，自从它在存储库网站 Academia.edu 上发布后的几周内被 000 次访问，这一比率显示了它在学术界的热门话题。Coin 谈到了一位职业学者，他“工作不切实际，24/7 的时间表被不断超负荷和频繁的倦怠记录下来。它作为一个个体企业，其对自我实现的渴望转化为不断因不满情绪和难以管理的工作量而受挫。” 遵循法国哲学家阿尔伯特·加缪（Albert Camus）（1913-1960）的叛逆信条，这种职业疲劳的可能答案是戒烟。用硬币的话来说：24/7 日程安排由不断超负荷和频繁的倦怠记录。它作为一个个体企业，其对自我实现的渴望转化为不断因不满情绪和难以管理的工作量而受挫。” 遵循法国哲学家阿尔伯特·加缪（Albert Camus）（1913-1960）的叛逆信条，这种职业疲劳的可能答案是戒烟。用硬币的话来说：24/7 日程安排由不断的超负荷和频繁的倦怠记录下来。它作为一个个体企业，其对自我实现的渴望转化为不断因不满情绪和难以管理的工作量而受挫。” 遵循法国哲学家阿尔伯特·加缪（Albert Camus）（1913-1960）的叛逆信条，这种职业疲劳的可能答案是戒烟。用硬币的话来说：