Sir

It seems that everyone laments the publish-or-perish syndrome afflicting the modern scientific community1. An unfortunate consequence of the increasing emphasis placed by funding bodies on numbers of research papers rather than overall quality of research has been the demise of the monograph.

Rather than writing comprehensive, integrated works, scientists today are encouraged to split their output into minimum publishable units. These ‘paperlets’ are either difficult to understand by themselves or result in much repetition due to necessary references to related paperlets. So shorter papers do not save journal space, but instead contribute to the publication explosion plaguing editors1. They also make things difficult for scientists, as the information is not available in a single comprehensive work but is scattered in several places.

Another equally important but less discussed factor leading to the demise of comprehensive research papers has been pressure from publishers and editors. More and more journals are imposing strict page limits: there are now almost no high-profile journals with a general readership that publish monographs. In contrast, the number of leading journals that publish only short papers has increased. It is no longer worthwhile writing longer papers because of the lack of high-profile journals that will publish them.

Philosophical Transactions A and B, the world's oldest journals, have bravely defied this trend. In my area (systematic biology), Phil. Trans. B is now the only high-profile general outlet for lengthy primary research reports. Such papers must otherwise be diverted to specialist journals, such as the Linnean Society publications, or museum annals with limited readership.

The last bastion of the monograph is, however, about to fall: it has just been announced that from 1 July, Phil. Trans. A and B will no longer accept primary research papers. Instead, they will publish only reviews and theme volumes2. Although the reasons were not specified, it is likely that the financial and logistical strain of processing and publishing monographs forced the shift. No doubt Phil. Trans. will continue to publish important and timely review papers and anthologies. But this proposed niche is already occupied by several journals, such as Biological Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology and Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. From July, the unique role Phil. Trans. A and B now perform for the scientific community (as two of the few remaining high-profile periodicals publishing detailed empirical papers of lasting importance) will end. And with fewer influential outlets for the comprehensive research paper — which everyone agrees is preferable to a plethora of insubstantial paperlets — scientists will be discouraged more than ever from writing them.