Abstract: The hazards of “publish or perish” have garnered significant attention. However, the impact of publication pressure on the direction of scientific research through researchers’ cognition and behavior remains underexplored. As the primary agents of scientific activities, researchers act as intermediaries in the scientific reward system, facilitating the positive development of scientific research. Both the Merton School and the Paris School argue that the operational logic of science rewards depends on the institutional environment that shapes the behavior of researchers. However, their perspective overlooks the fact that researchers’ reflexive cognition may be altering the trajectory of scientific development from the bottom up. Reflexivity refers to an individual's reflection on past situations, which actively influences the events in which they participate. This is a constructive process where reality impacts cognition, and cognition, in turn, generates new realities. Publication pressure is not merely a product of the environment acting on the individual; it also drives individuals to construct new realities based on their cognition. Therefore, this paper explores the impact of publication pressure on scientific research, emphasizing the reflexive role of researchers in the scientific enterprise and re-examining whether science rewards are oriented towards a responsible and innovative development path. This paper addresses the issue of reflexivity in the science reward system and constructs the reflexive relationship of “science reward and evaluation system - publication pressure - scientific research.” Publication pressure is intensified by the scarcity of resources highlighted through scientific reward mechanisms and the increased publication requirements of a quantitatively oriented research evaluation system. Researchers reflexively choose to deviate from the optimal development of scientific research in terms of research attitudes (diffusion of responsibility in collaborative research), research topic selection (marginalization of repetitive research), and research writing (positivity bias in academic language). The excessive focus on innovation within scientific reward mechanisms overlooks the need for responsible, objective, and reproducible scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to manage responsibility proactively and promote a shift in publishing practices to encourage pragmatic innovation.