Nursing faculty's experiences of publication stress and research integrity: a phenomenological study in Jordan universities.

Nursing faculty’s experiences of publication stress and research integrity: a phenomenological study in Jordan universities - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice BMC Nurs . 2026 Apr 20;25:509. doi: 10.1186/s12912-026-04529-8 Nursing faculty’s experiences of publication stress and research integrity: a phenomenological study in Jordan universities Fatima Gh Alfaqieh 1 , Khadeejeh Y Aldasoqi 2 , Marwa Nayef Alhalabi 3, ✉ , Ferial A Hayajneh 4 , Mufadi Al-Momani 5 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Community Health Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Zarqa University, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan 2 Department of Maternal and Child Health Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan 3 Department of Clinical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Zarqa University (ZU), P.O.Box 132222, Zarqa, 13132 Jordan 4 Department of Clinical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan 5 Department of Applied Science, Vocational Educational (Former) Al-Balqa’ Applied University, ALsalt, Jordan ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Oct 1; Accepted 2026 Mar 3; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13235207  PMID: 42010609 Abstract Background Faculty members are overwhelmed by tremendously huge academic responsibilities. This might lead to both professional and personal burdens. These burdens might in turn influence research integrity and may potentially prompt unethical practices. This study aims to explore the lived experiences of pre-tenured and tenured nursing faculty members in Jordanian universities, focusing on how they perceive and navigate the challenges of publication and research integrity. Methods A descriptive phenomenological design guided by Giorgi’s method. In-depth semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with purposively selected nursing faculty members at two large Jordanian universities: one public and one private. Thematic analysis was used to capture the essence of participants’ experiences. A purposive sample of nine pre-tenured and tenured, master’s and PhD nursing faculty members in Jordanian universities, public and private. Results The analysis uncovered five themes reflecting the faculty’s experiences in research publication and integrity. This included: (1) Institutional Paradoxes and Lack of Support (lack of financial funding for publishing, absence of workload reduction, and constrained research structure); (2) Crushing Teaching and Administrative Burden (administrative and clinical responsibilities, administrative and clinical responsibilities, and heavy teaching schedules with large class sizes); (3) Quantity over Quality in Research Evaluation (point system and author order, and devaluing candid contribution);4) Unethical Research Practices (data fabrication and manipulation, exploitation of graduate students, and predatory practices of publication); and 5) Emotional and Existential Price (frustration and disappointment, fatigue and burnout). Conclusion This study highlights the pressures and challenges nursing faculty members face regarding publication and research integrity. Universities should move beyond numeracy-based promotion systems and develop strategies to foster a healthy and ethical research environment that contributes to raising the quality of scientific production. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-026-04529-8. Keywords: Research integrity, Publication stress, Nursing faculty, Jordan, Descriptive phenomenology, Academic promotion Introduction Faculty members face exacerbated stress to publish, which can affect research integrity and may lead to unethical practices. Publication stress refers to “the emotional and psychological strain experienced by scholars and faculty members due to the increasing pressure to publish frequently, particularly in high-quality journals, as publication productivity is closely linked to career advancement, professional recognition, and academic survival” [ 1 ]. The stress to publish research is compounded by institutional high expectations and the competitive nature of the academic environment [ 2 ]. The pressure to publish can impact both junior and senior faculty members. Many nursing faculty members report significant pressure to publish, which can negatively affect their teaching responsibilities and overall job satisfaction [ 2 ]. The “publish or perish” axiom is common culture, particularly among faculty members, who may experience or take part in many unethical practices to achieve publication requirements for promotion during their careers. While university incentives for publications can motivate increased academic productivity, it may lead to a focus on quantity rather than quality in research output. The financial incentives of research can be associated with several unethical practices. On the other hand, some argue that the stress to publish can directly innovate and improve research quality, as faculty members strive to meet high standards in their work. This view highlights the potential benefits of a competitive academic environment, albeit with associated challenges [ 3 ]. The competitive nature of academia can create an environment where researchers feel pressured to publish quickly and make groundbreaking discoveries, potentially leading to misconduct [ 2 ]. The phenomenon of publication stress among Jordanian nursing faculty members shows broader trends in academia, in that highly competitive and mandatory publications are sought from academic staff. The competitive environment might be at the expense of the integrity and quality of the research process. the pressure to publish exists at both public and private universities, leading to high ethical dilemmas and potentially misconduct [ 4 ]. The following section delineates the factors leading to this stress, as well as faculty experiences regarding academic research integrity. Recently, academic institutions worldwide have increased their emphasis on research productivity as a major criterion for faculty member promotion and institutional ranking. The focus on the amount of publications have caused increased stress on academic members to publish continuously, often in high-impact journals, a phenomenon commonly referred to as “publish or perish”. This can lead to unethical practices such as submitting to predatory journals [ 2 ]. According to Armond, Cobey, & Moher, (2024), this may have negative consequences not only on research quality and utility but also on researchers’ careers. This might have devastating consequences for trust in the researcher, damaging his or her career, and even receiving legal and institutional penalties. From a broader context, research ethical misconduct may disrupt the development of science and lead to a waste of financial resources [ 5 ]. The emphasis on publishing can foster a competitive atmosphere that drives innovation and boosts research output. However, this must be balanced with a commitment to ethical standards to ensure the integrity of academic work. This can be extremely challenging in the line of limited financial resources allocated for academic research [ 2 ]. In Jordan, nursing faculties in both public and private universities face these challenges because of increasingly competitive academic environments. Huge teaching loads, insufficient research infrastructure, and limited funding opportunities mainly restrict their ability to engage in sober scientific inquiry [ 6 ]. Consequently, the institutional pressure to publish may lead to ethical dilemmas, potentially affecting decisions about authorship, results reporting, and journal selection. High concerns about research integrity, including issues such as plagiarism, gift authorship, and engagement with predatory journals, have become very apparent as faculties struggle to meet institutional requirements for promotion. The great pressure to publish has long been described as “publish or perish,” particularly at academic institutions, linking institutional promotion with publication quantity and journal prestige [ 7 ]. A recent Jordanian study evaluated awareness among researchers about predatory journals. About 34% of the researchers reported high ability to identify them, 11.9% had published in one, and two-thirds applied “Think. Check. Submit.” strategies. Predatory publishing remains common in developing countries and is often connected to promotion criteria [ 6 ]. An-Najah University’s journal for research survey reported that public and private Jordanian universities have strong performance regarding research integrity values overall. Scientific dishonesty scored only a medium rating; private universities showed stronger integrity promotion than public ones [ 8 ]. A qualitative study of Saudi nursing faculty members cited several barriers faced by academic researchers. These include high teaching work-load, limited institutional funding to conduct the research, lack of administrative support, and motivation factors which were similar to others across the Arab region [ 9 ]. Similarly, a large national survey of Jordanian nurses found that barriers to participation in research among nurses were largely influenced by organizational factors. Predictors included age, experience, and nationality [ 10 ]. Although the literature acknowledges these challenges, most researchers tend to focus on academic institutional policies and academic ethics awareness, without focusing on the lived experiences of faculty members. Specifically, there is minimal qualitative research that captures the lived experiences of nursing academics while living the double stress of publication demand and ethical research application. In the Middle East in general and Jordan in particular, cultural expectations, institutional regulatory systems, and academic hierarchies add further complexity to this landscape (7 [ 11 ]. However, no qualitative study has yet explored the lived experience of nursing faculty members in the Jordanian context. This study fills this gap by providing phenomenological insight, enabling for a deeper understanding than other than other research gleaned from surveys and cross‑sectional analysis Hence, this study aims to explore and understand the lived experiences of nursing faculty members regarding publication and research integrity, by addressing the following research questions: What does it mean to be a faculty member in a Jordanian university who has the responsibility towards academic work and publication? How do faculty members in Jordanian universities perceive the impact of publication for academic promotion on their professional and personal lives? What challenges and obstacles do faculty members in Jordanian universities face in relation to academic publication? How do faculty members in Jordanian universities perceive the impact of publication for academic promotion on research integrity? Method Study design Qualitative methodology enables researchers to grasp individuals’ points of view through detailed interviewing and observation. It presents the opportunity to “faculty members’ word of mouth” rather than to offer scales that may not touch, approximate, or capture the essence of the true meaning of their experiences [ 12 ]. Descriptive phenomenology is a qualitative approach that is rooted in the philosophical traditions of Edmund Husserl. It aims to provide detailed examinations of personal lived experiences without pre-conceived assumptions. It is committed to exploring the detailed experience of each faculty member before moving to a more general revealing of their lived experiences [ 13 ]. It is considered an appropriate approach for the current study because it allows researchers to explore the lived experiences of faculty members. It permits a deep understanding of participants’ subjective experiences within their socio-cultural context. Rooted in Husserlian philosophy, this approach facilitates the exploration of meaning as it is lived and perceived, without imposing external interpretations. This approach enables researchers to bracket their assumptions and biases and allows capturing the essence of the phenomenon as experienced by faculty members. Setting This study was conducted at two large universities in Jordan: one public and one private. These academic institutions were chosen to provide different perspectives based on different policies, resources, and academic environments that may affect faculty experiences with scholarly publication stress and research ethics. Participants and sampling A purposive sampling method was used, selecting nine faculty members from public and private universities in Jordan. This included two full-time professors, three instructors with master’s degrees, two associate professors, and two assistant professors. The following inclusion criteria were met: full-time nursing faculty members with at least three years of academic experience, actively involved in scholarly publications and research activities, and willing to participate in in-depth interviews. Based on the studies of Streubert and Carpenter (2011) [ 14 ], Data collection concluded upon verification of the achievement of thematic saturation for the participants and the overall structure of the phenomenon, which no new themes, sub-themes, or meaningful insights emerging from the participants’ responses. In addition, data were collected and analyzed concurrently, enabling researchers to identify patterns of recurrence in participants’ experiences and perceptions regarding Publication Stress and Research Integrity. In this study, the sample size of nine academics was sufficient to achieve saturation [ 12 ]. Data collection Data was collected through face-to-face, semi-structured, in-depth interviews in a quiet and private place. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 min and was audio-recorded with the participant’s consent. After the completion of the interviews, the data were directly transcribed and analyzed. Field notes were taken to capture non-verbal cues and contextual details, and the researcher’s reflexivity was maintained through journaling. A pilot interview was conducted with a clinical trainer prior to data collection. The interview manual was then revised to enhance its comprehensiveness and accuracy. Some questions were reworded, and others were added to explore the participants’ experiences with research pressures and integrity, which emerged during this pilot phase. This revision helped ensure the interview guide was rich in meaningful data and supported the study’s credibility and dependability [ 15 ]. An interview guide was created by the researchers based on relevant literature and reviewed by experts in qualitative research, (Supplementary file 1 ). Data analysis The data were collected and analyzed using Giorgi’s descriptive phenomenological method [ 16 ], which involves these systematic steps: First, reading for a sense of the whole: Transcripts were read entirely to understand the overall context. Second, identifying meanings: where interviews were divided into smaller parts that showed changes in meanings. In that, each transcript was read and re-read so at the point where the text was segmented, a shift in the experienced meaning was captured. These meaning units represented specific emotional or practical dimensions of the lived experiences for each participant and related to the stress of publication and the maintenance of academic integrity. Therefore, the changes in meanings guided the segmentation process rather than the grammatical structure. Third, transformation of meaning units: where these units were rephrased in sensitive language to remain as close as possible to the participants’ experiences while making them understandable for scientific inquiry. Finally, synthesis into a general structure, more specifically, the transformed units were combined to describe the essential structure of the experience across participants [ 13 ]. Throughout the analysis, the researcher set aside preconceptions to remain true to the participants’ descriptions. Trustworthiness The researchers ensured trustworthiness by ensuring credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability throughout all phases of this research study, from the selection of research questions to the results. Credibility was ensured by selecting academic participants who had personally experienced the research, possessed rich data, and met eligibility criteria, thus obtaining diverse perspectives on the specific research questions. Moreover, the results were reviewed with participants, and the data were discussed with colleagues. Second, the researchers ensured transferability, allowing the reader to assess whether the findings of the current study are applicable in other contexts, by providing a comprehensive description of the experiences and backgrounds. Third, to ensure dependability, it was verified by maintaining a detailed audit trail of all research steps, including the interview guide, field observations, coding, and analysis. fourth, the researchers strengthened conformability through peer review and an audit trail during each interview. Finally, this qualitative study has provided an understanding about the essence of faculty members experiences in the conduct and publication of research in a highly competitive and demanding environment. This represents a move forward in terms of appreciating unique personal, religious and moral context of these faculty members. It provides a genuine description of how they deal with the conflict between their personal convictions and their professional responsibilities through the use of descriptive phenomenology. By the application of phenomenological reduction, including bracketing prior assumptions and intentional reflection, the lived experiences of faculty members evolved in its purest form. This method strengthens the research’s legitimacy and openness while reaffirming the importance of descriptive phenomenology in revealing emotionally precise realities in nursing education. Additionally, it contributes to the global conversation on academic pedagogy by offering a culturally contextualized perspective that broadens the usefulness of phenomenological insights. Results This research investigated heterogeneous participants, yet they all revealed common struggles and experiences related to research publication and integrity. The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in (Table 1 ). They generally were left disappointed, bushed, and morally distressed by certain institutional regulations and practices. Moreover, they reported feeling frustrated by unethical practices that were committed by some faculty, which left them emotionally disturbed. The thorough analysis of the lived experiences of the faculty of the current study revealed five themes, presented in (Table 2 ). Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants Code Gender Degree and affiliation Age Marital Status Number of Children Type of University 1 Male Phd/professor 56 Married 4 Public 2 Male Phd/professor 60 Married 4 Public 3 Female PhD/Assistant professor 52 Married 4 Public 4 Female PhD/Assistant professor 49 Married None Private 5 Male PhD/Assistant professor 37 Married None Private 6 Male PhD/Assistant professor 44 Married 6 Private 7 Female MSc/ Teacher 63 Married 2 Public 8 Female MSc/ Teacher 59 Married 2 Public 9 Female MSc/ Teacher 35 Single None Public Open in a new tab Table 2. Themes that emerged from lived experiences of the faculty members Themes Sub-Themes Institutional Paradoxes and Lack of Support • Lack of financial funding for publishing. • Absence of workload reduction. • Constrained research structure Crushing Teaching and Administrative Burden • Administrative and clinical responsibilities • Heavy teaching schedules with large class sizes Quantity over Quality in Research Evaluation • Point system and author order • Devaluing candid contribution Unethical Research Practices • Data fabrication and manipulation • Exploitation of graduate students Emotional and Existential Price • Frustration and disappointment • Fatigue and burnout Open in a new tab Theme 1: Institutional Paradoxes and Lack of Support The majority of faculty expressed a lack of institutionally based strategies to balance the expected responsibilities. For instance, the demand to achieve and fulfil several responsibilities at the same time at the highest level, is extremely high. This presents a challenge, especially in the light of limited support and resources. In accordance with this, the participant 6. reported that: “Our university is always proud of its excellence in research publication. However, in reality, the support for us is too limited. There is no adequate time and money to help us increase our productivity in publication”. Sub theme1: Lack of financial funding for publishing This suffering was obvious from the narrative of the female assistant professor: The university wants us to publish in first-class journals , but they do not cover the publication fee. Recently , there has been a financial reward for publication , but to produce strong research , you have to get more financial support from the university at the first place. (Participant 3). A male professor conveyed his frustration in this regard as follows: We are expected to publish in high-impact journals , but there is no financial support from the university. We pay publication fees ourselves , and sometimes even conference expenses come from our own salaries. (Participant 5) . Sub-theme 2: Absence of workload reduction Because the participants reported that their academic responsibilities were overwhelming and multiple, including teaching and community service, they expressed their frustration about the privilege of load reduction. We are expected to perform a very heavy teaching and administrative load every semester. This leaves me a very short time for research conduction or publication. This put too much pressure on my shoulders…I don’t afford to enjoy a single weekend…I must invest every minute in every twenty-four-seven… The participant’s sigs and tears appeared in her eyes (Participant 4). Sub-theme 3: Constrained research structure The general experience among most participants is that there is a gap between ambitions and reality. The published plans are to enhance and increase research publication, but the research infrastructure at the universities is suboptimal. This includes lab, statistical analysis and data management, as well as vague administrative procedures. Faculty perceived that there is a disconnection between institutional policies and actual resources. The university demands rich and numerous academic production , specifically at high-indexed journals. I think this needs to be done , we need labs , statistics office , computer , and artificial intelligence support…you know , the administrative communication with the different units of the university is time-consuming and extremely demanding (Participant 2). Theme 2: Crushing teaching and administrative burden The participants who hold a PhD degree reported restricted time available for research. However, this experience was tremendously influential for faculty who hold a master’s degree. All faculty members who work as teachers expressed the massive amount of pressure on them because of the extensive draining nature of the clinical practice. Sub-theme 1: Administrative and clinical responsibilities Master-holder faculty members reported that they were pressured under theoretical, clinical, and administrative responsibilities. The burden in the job description among master’s degree faculty members was not the extra load they have to teach, but its exhaustive nature. Can you imagine how my days are drained in teaching and evaluating clinical students either at hospitals and labs or both , then after that I have theory courses to teach , and like this every single day of the week. The only day I do not have teaching , they ask me to be the course coordinator , which occupies my head all week (Participant 6) . Sub-theme 2: Heavy teaching schedules with large class sizes The suffering of those teachers was compounded by the lack of recognition for their efforts from the coordinators and doctors. They were also assigned administrative loads that were not outlined accurately in their job descriptions. When I teach six courses every semester , with about 100 students in each one , by the end of the day I feel drained. This pushes me to work on research at night or during weekends (Participant 5). In addition to my obvious job description , there are other administrative committees that drain my efforts in data management and data entry after I finish my clinical and theoretical teaching (Participant 6). These responsibilities make the faculty perceive research work as extra work. In fact , research work is not integrated with our load , I feel it is like a hobby that I should do after I finish the work demanded from the school (Participant 2). Theme 3: Quantity over quality in research evaluation Most faculty members reported that the way they are being evaluated is only through the lens of the number of their publications. This undermines the importance of the quality of research and its clinical or scientific contribution. This was outlined as: Regardless of the quality of your research , whether it is academic , scientific , or innovative , the primary criterion is the number of research papers where you are the first author. (participant 1) . Sub-theme 1: Point system and author order The evaluation system favored the quantity of publications, regardless of impact or relevance. Believe me , as long as your name appears in the citation list , nobody cares about how valuable it is or even how strong (Participant 5). Moreover, the faculty members are going through a stressful experience regarding the point-based evaluation system that quantifies the progress of the faculty academically by the number of published research, especially when he or she is the first author. Unless you are the first author , your contribution to research is invisible…the point system that values how much research you published (Participant 3). Sub-theme 2: Devaluing candid contribution One surprising issue was raised by many faculty members in relation to the quality and quantity of research papers. This was a tendency to produce three research papers with minimum quality and rigor, instead of working on one large body of scientific research. It is better for faculty to engage in three small research papers and achieve a larger number of publications , than working on long large research project (Participant 8). A senior professor confirmed the prior experience by reporting: If we do not produce the required number of research , we will not be promoted…the focus here is on the number , not the quality. It is not about the scientific merit of research papers , but the number…believe me , I feel we are in a battle…it is like kickboxing…this is far beyond the quality and contribution of the research (Participant 1). Theme 4: Unethical research practices Participants described experiences related to the ethics of research which were related to witnessing or hearing about unethical practices by some faculty members. These included plagiarism, fabrication of data, predatory publication, and corruption of a graduate student’s dissertation. “I am aware of some colleagues who do not have time for research conduction , so they fabricate data…they abuse the system that puts value over the number of publications , not the quality” (Participant 7). Sub-theme 1: Data fabrication and manipulation Almost all participants were aware of data manipulation by some faculty members because of the pressure to publish, not only for promotion, but to gain financial benefits. Unfortunately , nobody asks you about the source of your data…nobody cares. The most important issue is that your paper is published…some colleagues adjust the data to fit the variables of a new research (Participant 2). Some colleagues adjust their data until it ‘fits.’ Nobody asks questions as long as the paper gets accepted. (Participant 1). Sub-theme 2: Exploitation of graduate students One participant was aware of certain faculty members who used data collected by their graduate students or ideas developed by them. I have witnessed a complaint of postgraduate students who claimed that the advisor published similar research on the idea of his dissertation , and the advisor erased his name (Participant 5). Sub-theme 3: Predatory practices of publication The experience of predatory practices in publication was reported by many participants. You can pay for the journal , and your research gets published in a short time…regardless of the research quality , the focus honestly is on the promotion here (Participant 4). Other participants experienced faculty members putting the name of a senior faculty member on the research although they did not contribute to it. Sometimes , you are surprised that you find the name of some senior faculty on the research because they are senior , although they have no input in the research (Participant 2). Theme 5: Emotional and existential price Several participants reported being torn between their professional commitments and their academic expectations. The majority of the participants grappled with the ongoing emotional and existential charge of being faculty members. Participants struggled to meet academic goals and lived within institutional contradictions and unethical practices while trying to honor ethical principles related to publication. Sub-theme 1: Frustration and disappointment Profound disappointment was reported by almost all participants regarding general barriers in achieving their academic passions that echo their intuitive ambitions. I feel , no matter what I do , time is against me…no , it is not the time , it is everything against me…I get discouraged from multitasking and the chaos I experience at home and at work (Participant 7). Sub-theme 2: Fatigue and burnout This theme highlights how faculty members adjust their pedagogical and academic efforts to navigate through this experience successfully, yet all female participants reported being tired and drained from this experience. Every day I reach home , I realize how tired I am…but the pain is not only in my body…it is my head…thoughts come and go…I find no rest even when I sleep (deep sigh. Participant 3). These experiences were shared by all female participants regardless of their marital status or the presence of children. The majority of participants revealed that what seemed an inspiring journey at the beginning had changed into a continuous struggle for survival. At the onset of their academic experience, they were loaded with passion and ambition to achieve valuable accomplishments in the nursing profession. I entered academia with dreams of research and innovation. Now , I just publish to survive. The passion is gone. (Participant 5). A senior professor conveyed this perception When I entered academic work , I was extremely proud of myself and I was thinking positively about research for patients carte , clinical protocols , and more…these days I feel we have to distinguish between the true researcher and the research writer (Participant 2). The shared essence of faculty experience about publication stress involves more than just publication; it involves continuously navigating one’s identity, beliefs, and professional obligations in an environment that is loaded with responsibilities towards teaching, community service, and publication. The presence of certain unethical practices by some colleagues had a profound impact on their sense of moral conflict and frustration, which seemed contrary to their cultural and religious norms. Discussion This phenomenological study explored the lived experiences of Jordanian nursing faculty members regarding publication pressures and research integrity. The findings revealed many facts in which academic institutional contradictions, professional pressure, and ethical challenges, work together to shape academic life. These findings contribute to the global culture of “publish or perish”, while providing thorough insights into its cultural and contextual impact within Jordanian universities. Participants reported a striking paradox: universities publicly emphasize empirical excellence yet fail to give the support resources or workload-decrease necessary for high-quality research. This includes exaggerated loads for teaching and administration responsibilities, a lack of sufficient research infrastructure, and inadequate financial support to cover publication fees which have led to constrained scholarly engagement. This opens up a wider problem in academic institutions where systems rhetoric about “research-driven” is not compatible with financial support structures. These findings are consistent with evidence from regional studies which document how organizational barriers significantly influence research productivity among health professionals in Jordan and neighboring countries (5, 12). Aldarabseh (2020) study documented inadequate institutional support as a major barrier for all Jordanian researchers [ 6 ] Same obstacles have been found in Saudi Arabia, where faculty members reported a lack of funding and increased teaching requirements as significant difficulties to further research (Alotaibi, 2023) [ 9 ]. However, beyond structural constraints, this study illuminates the lived meaning of these barriers as experienced dissonance between institutional discourse and daily academic reality. The heavy teaching and administrative demands, particularly for master’s-holding faculty members, are reported as a critical issue limiting scholarly work. Participants explain the exhaustion of balancing theoretical teaching, clinical supervision, and other administrative tasks. Melland (1995) [ 17 ] mentions that nursing educators have dual expectations of teaching and research, often without adequate structural, financial support. More recent evidence from Abuhammad, Alzoubi, Khabour, and Mukattash (2020) [ 18 ] confirms that institutional obstacles are still the strongest predictors of inadequate research participation among Jordanian nurses. These findings suggest that academic hierarchies inflate inequities, with junior members disproportionately burdened by education responsibilities that restrict their ability to publish. The principal dimension of the phenomenon is connected with the policies used for academic evaluation. These regulations emphasize and prioritize the quantity of publication and order of authorship. Participants voiced high dissatisfaction with the promotion process that focuses on the number of scholarly articles rather than their quality, relevance, or impact. The criteria-based evaluation system, which unfairly rewards first authorship, was realized as a devaluation of genuine contribution in research production. This is consistent with the global culture of “publish or perish”, which often encourages fragmented outputs and questions about authorship [ 19 ]. Fanelli (2010) provided research evidence that pressures to publish have a higher bias in research findings. In this study, participants described this environment as a “battle for survival,” highlighting the extent to which increased numerical performance indicators, dissatisfaction motivation to publish. One of the most shocking findings was the normalization of unethical research practices, including data fabrication, predatory publishing, and exploitation of graduate students’ work. Participants explain how colleagues fabricate data to meet publication requirements or misappropriate students’ work. These practices mirror issues raised in global literature about the negative effects of driven publication systems [ 3 , 20 ]. In Jordan, the probability of predatory publishing has been identified, with a significant number of complaints of researchers’ difficulty in identifying such journals [ 6 ]. The exploitation of graduate students is particularly critical, as it undermines supervision, damages trust and highly threatens the future of ethical nursing research. In addition to structural and ethical issues, this study underlines the exacerbated emotional burden associated with publication pressure. Faculty members reported frustration, burnout, and the loss of motivation for research, with some describing that they now publish only “to survive.” Mutongoza (2023) similarly found that the normalization of unethical practices among faculty members is affected by publication pressure on junior members [ 17 ], while Miller et al. (2011) noticed that the academic environment often forces faculty members to sacrifice personal life for scholarly productivity [ 19 ]. The price of academic existence reported by faculty members in this study extends beyond professional dissatisfaction. Addressing that systemic pressure eliminates not only research quality but also professional identity. Findings must also be addressed within the cultural and national context. Religiosity was reported as an important factor impacting perceptions of research integrity, with misconduct perceived not only as academically unacceptable but also as ethically and religiously impermissible [ 18 ]. The role of religious and ethical awareness sharpens the faculty members’ perceptions related to research integrity. For many participants, ethical conduct was embedded with religious commitments to pure and valid conduct of research and publication. These attitudes served as a guiding light in the face of pressure to conduct and publish research. Within this context, vigilance in research was not experienced merely as an institutional obligation but as built-in moral values. This framework of responsibility adds difficulty to faculty members’ moral challenges, as violations affect both professional and spiritual consequences. Also, hierarchical promotion systems and strict institutional regulations leave academic members with little power to resist or challenge these stresses, magnifying their sense of moral conflict. This qualitative study investigated the experience of faculty members in publication from both public and private universities. Interestingly, participants from both universities described similar experiences in relation to publication pressure, exaggerated workload and work expectations, and concerns related to research integrity. This indicates that the stress surrounding publication-related issues may be embedded in the structure of the academic institution environments. Conclusion The lived experiences of faculty members in highly demanding academic institutions with limited support were investigated in this study. Several important topics surfaced through descriptive phenomenology, such as the urgent need to reshape at the institutional, professional, and cultural levels. In work environments where the quantity of published research has a significant and direct impact on academic status, these findings highlight the challenges of being a devout academic researcher in the Jordanian context. This study adds religiously grounded dilemmas of academic requirements and obligations and research and publication integrity. Findings of the current study highlight the need to improve the institutional support for faculty members in general, particularly, those at the pre-tenure stage of their academic career. The notion that academic promotion is based on the quantity of published research and the authorship order should be reconsidered by academic regulators. Universities should transition beyond quantity-driven promotion systems to reward innovation, rigor, and impact. Legislation must provide workload reduction and sufficient research funding to support novel scholarship. Nursing schools should give more priority to mentorship policies that protect graduate students and enhance ethical practices. Importantly, universities in Jordan may benefit from cultural and religious values as positive drivers to motivate research integrity, developing a shared framework that integrates moral and professional commitments. Strength and limitation This study provides a unique contribution by exploring the lived experiences of Jordanian nursing faculty members, a perspective largely absent from current research. While previous studies have focused on quantitative survey-based assessments of challenges and misconduct, this phenomenological approach provides a thorough understanding of the meanings faculty reported. By highlighting the intersection of institutional contradictions, and ethical issues, the study bridges the gap between structural laws and personal lived experiences, giving a more holistic understanding of the stresses present in nursing research in Jordan and beyond. On other side, this study has some limitations related to the generalizability of the findings because it is a qualitative study. This study focuses on the experiences of faculty members at nursing colleges in Jordan, which limits the ability to generalize the findings across different academic contexts. Additionally, the reliance on a phenomenological approach and self-reported interviews may lead to results being influenced by memory biases or the desire to present a favorable impression. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the issue of research integrity may have influenced the degree of candor of the participants. Supplementary Information Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary Material 1 (18.2KB, docx) Acknowledgements Not applicable. Author contributions F.A. conceived the study, methodology, data collection, and discussion. KH.A. was responsible for the data collection and analysis; F.H. and M.A. supervised all research phases, while M.A. contributed to writing the final draft of the manuscript and publication. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Funding The author(s) did not receive any financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Data availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval was sought from the Institutional Review Boards of Zarqa University with approval number (100/2024–2025). Signed informed consent forms were collected from all participants which explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, their rights, and guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity. Participation was voluntary, and participants were assured that they could withdraw at any time without any consequences. All methods were carried out following relevant guide lines and regulations or the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent for publication All participants obtained prior written consent to participate and publish anonymous quotes. No identifying information will be disclosed. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Raksithaa S. Publication stress amongst scholars and faculties: a concern of mental health. Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 2024(ahead-of-print). 2. Mutongoza BH. Pressured to perform: the negative consequences of the ‘publish or perish’phenomenon among junior academics. Scholarsh Teach Learn South. 2023;7(2):46–62. [ Google Scholar ] 3. Quaia E, Vernuccio F. Finding a good balance between pressure to publish and scientific integrity and how to overcome temptation of scientific misconduct. MDPI; 2022. pp. 1851–3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 4. Lach HW. Research integrity:Doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 2019. pp. 655–7. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Armond ACV, Cobey KD, Moher D. Research Integrity definitions and challenges. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;171:111367. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Khabour OF, Alzoubi KH, Aldarabseh WM. Awareness of Jordanian researchers about predatory journals: A need for training. Sci Eng Ethics. 2024;30(6):58. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(4):e10271. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. abu Jaber M, Alzboun M. The role of Jordanian universities in promoting academic integrity. An-Najah Univ J Research-B (Humanities). 2020;36(2):333–66. [ Google Scholar ] 9. Alotaibi K. Barriers to conducting and publishing research among nursing faculty members at Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study. Nurs open. 2023;10(10):7048–57. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Abuhammad S et al. Jordanian national study of nurses’ barriers and predictors for research utilization in clinical settings. Risk Manage Healthc policy, 2020: pp. 2563–9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 11. Al-Duhoun AH, et al. Exploring Jordanian nurses’ attitudes toward conducting nursing research: cross-sectional study from Jordan. Front Med. 2025;12:1646739. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage; 2016. 13. Giorgi A. The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh: Duquesne Univ Pr; 2009. [ Google Scholar ] 14. Speziale HS, Streubert HJ, Carpenter DR. Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. 15. Azman AB, Majid MAA. Testing the Waters: Insights from Our Pilot Interview Study. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2026;24(1):1–12. [ Google Scholar ] 16. Giorgi A. The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne university; 2009. 17. Melland HI. Nurse educators and the demands of research. J Nurs Educ. 1995;34(2):71–6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Abuhammad S, et al. Jordanian National Study of Nurses’ Barriers and Predictors for Research Utilization in Clinical Settings. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020;13:2563–9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Miller AN, Taylor SG, Bedeian AG. Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Dev Int. 2011;16(5):422–45. [ Google Scholar ] 20. Kearney M, Downing M, Gignac EA. Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct. J Osteopath Med. 2024;124(5):187–94. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Material 1 (18.2KB, docx) Data Availability Statement All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Articles from BMC Nursing are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.0 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• The Predatory Paradox: Ethics, Politics, and Practices in Contemporary Scholarly Publishing#177805
• Scholarly productivity of non-pharmacy practice faculty in U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy, 2019-2023#304186
• Setting up an academic journal: Some essential steps#82671
• Building and Sustaining Scholarly Communities in Health Professions Education: Lessons from U.S. Academies.#613292
• REFLEXÕES SOBRE GESTÃO DO CONHECIMENTO NO PROCESSO DE AVALIAÇÃO FORMATIVA DA INTEGRIDADE ACADÊMICA E DA RESPONSABILIDADE SOCIAL: uma análise bibliométrica na Scopus e Web of Science#339083