Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days
John P. A. Ioannidis,Richard Klavans,Kevin W. Boyack
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8
IF: 64.8
2018-09-01
Nature
Abstract:<p>About half of the hyperprolific authors were in medical and life sciences (medicine <i>n </i>= 101, health sciences <i>n </i>= 11, brain <i>n </i>= 17, biology <i>n </i>= 6, infectious diseases <i>n </i>= 3). When we excluded conference papers, almost two-thirds belonged to medical and life sciences (86/131). Among the 265, 154 authors produced more than the equivalent of one paper every 5 days for 2 or more calendar years; 69 did so for 4 or more calendar years. Papers with 10–100 authors are common in these CVs, especially in medical and life sciences, but papers with the hundreds of authors seen in particle physics are uncommon.</p><p> <aside class="recommended pull pull--left sans-serif" data-label="Related"> <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05146-5" data-track="click" data-track-label="recommended article"><img class="recommended__image" src="//media.nature.com/w400/magazine-assets/d41586-018-06185-8/d41586-018-06185-8_15760990.jpg"><h1 class="recommended__title serif">Health tips for research groups</h1></a> </aside></p><p>Materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, former president of Tohoku University in Japan and a member of multiple prestigious academies, holds the record. He met our definition of being hyperprolific for 12 calendar years between 2000 and 2016. Since 1976, his name appears on 2,566 full papers indexed in Scopus. He has also retracted seven papers found to be self-duplications of previously published work<sup><a href="#ref-CR4">4</a></sup>. We searched for news articles in Google detailing retractions for the next 20 most hyperprolific authors and found only one other author (Jeroen Bax) to have one retracted paper. </p><p>The 265 hyperprolific authors worked in 37 countries, with the highest number in the United States (<i>n </i>= 50), followed by Germany (<i>n </i>= 28) and Japan (<i>n </i>= 27). The proportion from the United States (19%) is roughly similar to its share of published science. Germany and Japan are over-represented. There were disproportionally more hyperprolific authors in Malaysia (<i>n </i>= 13) and Saudi Arabia (<i>n </i>= 7), countries both known to incentivize publication with cash rewards<sup><a href="#ref-CR5">5</a></sup>. </p><p>Hyperprolific authors also tended to cluster in particular institutions, often as part of a common study. For example, Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands had nine hyperprolific authors, more than any other institution. Seven of them co-authored mostly papers related to the Rotterdam study, a nearly 30-year-old epidemiological project, or its successor Generation R study, which have followed multiple health parameters in thousands of older adults and yielded thousands of publications. Five hyperprolific investigators from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, also often co-authored papers related to cohort studies. Eleven hyperprolific authors across different institutions were on one large cohort study, the European Prospective Investigation on Cancer and Nutrition; other large epidemiological studies were also represented. Hyperprolific authors were also concentrated in cardiology and crystallography. </p><p>These biological and medical disciplines with many hyperprolific authors exhibit different patterns from those found in particle and high-energy physics. Papers with hundreds to thousands of authors are the norm across a community of many thousands of scientists working in projects based at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. In crystallography, papers tend to have few co-authors. In epidemiology and cardiology, long lists of authors appear only in relationship to specific research teams that seem to have a tradition of extensive authorship lists.</p><p> <aside class="recommended pull pull--left sans-serif" data-label="Related"> <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01512-5" data-track="click" data-track-label="recommended article"><img class="recommended__image" src="//media.nature.com/w400/magazine-assets/d41586-018-06185-8/d41586-018-06185-8_15461402.jpg"><h1 class="recommended__title serif">Kid co-authors in South Korea spur government probe</h1></a> </aside></p><p>This raises the question of what authorship entails. The US National Institutes of Health, for example, has guidelines on the activities that qualify: actively supervising, designing and doing experiments, and data acquisition and analysis outside “very basic” work plus drafting the manuscript. Collecting funds or distant mentorship do not qualify. Most of the 6,000 authors in a recent survey across many geographical regions and disciplines felt that drafting a paper, interpreting results and analysing data should qualify for authorship, but attitudes varied by region and field<sup><a href="#ref-CR6">6</a></sup>.</p><h2>Authorship criteria</h2><p>Perhaps the most widely established requirements for authorship are the <a hr <p>-Abstract Truncated-</p>
multidisciplinary sciences