Abstract
Once again, a manuscript is silenced not by scientific flaws, but by the tyranny of word count. As a basic researcher who has lived the tempo of discovery, I write this reflective note in response to the recurring rejection of concise, complete papers that simply fail to meet the so-called "minimum requirement" of 5000 words. This absurd numerical demand has nothing to do with scientific rigor, yet it is used as a gatekeeper. This article defends the power of brevity, questions the false equivalence between length and quality, and reveals the broader damage caused by this publishing culture; from distorted p-values and publication bias to the unfair silencing of non-native English-speaking scholars. This isn’t just a complaint. It is a protest against drawing legs on snakes just to please those who confuse verbosity with value. Let truth be enough, in the length it naturally takes. Let us stop dressing up snakes with legs just because policy says so.
References
Elman C, Gerring J, Mahoney J. The production of knowledge: Enhancing progress in social science: Cambridge University Press; 2020.
Fox CW, Paine CT, Sauterey B. Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals. Ecology and Evolution. 2016;6(21):7717-7726.
Harvey CR. Presidential address: The scientific outlook in financial economics. The Journal of Finance. 2017;72(4):1399-1440.
Ridley J, Kolm N, Freckelton R, Gage M. An unexpected influence of widely used significance thresholds on the distribution of reported P‐values. Journal of evolutionary biology. 2007;20(3):1082-1089.
Rassool GH. Writing for international publication in nursing journals: a personal perspective (part 1). Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2006;14:266-270.
Rassool GH. Writing for international publication in nursing journals: a personal perspective (part 2). Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2006;14:428-434.
Vanclay JK. Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics. 2012;92(2):211-238.
Yap CK. The basic is still basic: A biology professor’s philosophy and personal reflection. I TECH MAG. 2025;7:79-82.
Yap CK. The unseen foundations: Reflections on basic research, student growth, and the role of personality in learning. Education, Sustainability & Society. 2025;8:45-46. Available from: https://educationsustability.com/ess.01.2025.45.46/.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Chee Kong Yap (Author)