<p>As universities are increasingly subject to complex regulatory and administrative environment, concerns have been raised that rules and administrative procedures impose significant administrative burden on academic scientists. However, previous research suggests that rules and procedures, albeit burdensome, do not always have negative impacts on individual outcomes. This study makes hypotheses on the relationship between administrative burden and academic scientists’ research productivity, with a focus on its perceived rule extensiveness and reasonableness, as well as the moderating effects of both perceived rule reasonableness and perceived importance of professional help. Using survey and bibliometric data from a representative sample of academic scientists in life sciences from US universities, we find that perceived rule reasonableness and perceived importance of professional help jointly moderate the relationship between perceived rule extensiveness and research productivity. Specifically, when rules are perceived as very reasonable, the simultaneous presence of professional support and extensive rules introduces redundancy, whereby their combined effect may diminish rather than enhance research productivity. In contrast, when rules are perceived as unreasonable, professional support can buffer the negative impact of extensive rules and contribute to productivity gains. Our findings add to empirical evidence on the heterogeneous effects of administrative burden on research performance, underscoring the moderating role of rule reasonableness and professional help. Findings also offer practical implications for university administrators on how to optimize organizational support for researchers.</p>