Most Hyper Prolific and Most Unproductive
Researchers
According to the number of publications and the number of papers
produced annually, Table 5 includes some of the most hyper prolific
authors. It is noteworthy that during the course of their careers, the
top authors produced more than 3000 papers, which is amazing [4,5].
Actually, 930 of the list’s authors have more than 1000 papers to their
credit. Table 5 further breaks down the quantity of papers by the
duration of the study (calculated by last minus first year). Elisabeth
Mahase once more emerged as the most prolific author, producing nearly
220 papers annually.
Some of the authors (Table 5) are journalists, according to a more
thorough investigation. For BMJ, Elisabeth Mahase and Abi Rimmer cover
news. Even more alarmingly, Mahase and Rimmer outperformed most authors
in terms of scientific output, since Scopus regards news articles as “peer
review” publications.
Table 5 includes John P.A. Ioannidis, who has critically published about
hyper prolific authors despite not being in the top 5. Since 1994,
Ioannidis has published 45 papers per year on average. According to
Scopus, Ioannidis published 52-80 papers per year from 2016 to 2021, or
1 paper every 5 days, “a figure that many would consider implausibly
prolific” [4,5]. According to this ranking, Ioannidis is ranked 32
in the database, higher than the majority of Nobel laureates.
The most prolific authors who have written a paper entirely by
themselves are further examined in this study. Table 6 shows the
outcomes. It’s incredible that these authors, who are all from clinical
medicine, have written almost 2200 publications by themselves. The
majority of these authors are journalists from BMJ and other news
organizations, as was previously mentioned. The exception is Viroj
Wiwanitkit from Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, a University in Pune who
published, on average, 74 papers per year.
This outcome emphasizes even more the basic issue in so-called
“databases of standardized citation indicators,” which fail to
distinguish between news pieces and articles written by journalists
[3]. This so-called standardized citation indicator gives
first-author and single-authored papers more weight. Scientists from
MIT, Stanford, or any other scientist who had to put in a lot of effort
in experimental research have a considerably lower c rank than writer
Elisabeth Mahase, who can produce a one-page news piece every two days
and is listed with a rank of #33363. According to the Stanford list,
journalist Bridget M. Kuehn is ranked #17026, much ahead of 2021 Nobel
Prize winner in medicine Ardem Patapoutian (ranked #28519), and 2022
Nobel Prize winner in physics Alain Aspect (ranked #20486).
Given that Goodhart’s Law argues that “when a measure becomes a target,
it ceases to be a good measure,” this rank is susceptible to
manipulation and abuse. Based on this standardized citation rank, John
Ioannidis ranked himself as number 32.
In recent years, there has been a soar in the number of scientists who
are listed as having published an excessive number of scientific
articles, often at a rate much higher than their peers and many would
find it implausible. While productivity is generally considered a
positive outcome, researchers who are extremely productive run the risk
of raising questions about the quantity, quality, and significance of
their output. In some cases, cash incentives can be the driving force
for hyper prolific authors. Ethically, it is questionable if these
hyper-prolific authors even read their own papers, as they are often
“honorary” authors who do not deserve credit. It shows the danger of
an over-reliance on publication data, some authors are mainly added to
papers to complement the head of the lab with funding.
Hyper-prolific authors have a higher degree of citations because they
generate more works that are encouraged for citation. Some use
collaborative research strategy to boost papers, exposure, and editorial
task. The conditioning of the data can maximize publications as journals
are more likely to publish studies with conclusive, encouraging findings
that were written by well-known, hyper-prolific authors. In short, being
labeled as a hyper-prolific scientist should be cause for concern rather
than pride. The “publish-or-perish” ethos that has dominated science
for decades is the main reason behind their existence.
Table 5. Top most prolific authors in terms of number of papers and
number of papers per year