The publication epidemic and research cartels

[theteacher]

Many researchers publish 100-400 papers per year, see https://publons.com/researcher/?is_core_collection=1&is_last_twelve_months=1&order_by=num_publications

Someone told me that there are gangs in research (research cartels). They manage many journals and special issues. So I would like to hear your words of wisdom on the following questions:

• How do you think about this phenomenon?
• Does publishing >100 papers per year beneficial?
• How could anyone contribute to >100 papers per year (or one paper every three days)?
• How can a single researcher review more than 1,500 papers per year (4.13 papers per day)?
• How should regular researchers, i.e., those who publish ~5-10 papers per year, feel about their lack of productivity?

[Puget]

Some of these may be in error (multiple people with the same name).

Others are likely in fields were authorship conventions are to include everyone involved in the larger project (I know this is the case for e.g., high energy physics, and I'm guessing there are others).

Others are in countries were it is standard for the head of department and other "high status" individuals to be listed as authors on all publications-- not great, but hardly a "cartel".

Others are no doubt semi-fraudulent and publishing in scam journals. If they are publishing in scam or low status journals, those articles won't have much or any impact on their fields anyway.

The question is-- why do you care? Unless these people are in your field and competing with you for jobs/funding, it has no impact on you. Do your work, publish things that actually make a contribution to your field, and stop worrying about random lists of publication counts.

[Hibush]

I suspect your "somebody" is having trouble getting published for very conventional reasons, but wants to blame it on subterfuge.

In the present publishing environment, it would be impossible to maintain a barrier to publication that includes only a few researchers in a field. A single small journal might get clubby, but there is lots of competition from other journals.

The data that purportedly supprots the idea of superpublishers is also defective. I checked that list on Publons, and it is clear that the top citations are recording errors. The researcher is not an author on many of the publications attributed to them. Other math does not workk, e.g. you cant have 522 pubs but only and h-index of 12.

[Ruralguy]

Op,

If you are publishing regularly in good journals, then just do the other things people consider important in your field, or if in a TT position, important for your school or department. Otherwise, crazy externals aren't worth worrying about. Yes, leaders of large STEM groups probably publish hundreds to thousands of papers in their careers. I doubt very many are in journal cartels.

[Myword]

I don't understand how this is possible. There are not enough journals (in most fields) for all these articles. Of course, they may be only online and inaccessible. Plus a ton of repetition even in brief articles. What's the point? Personal ego? Or building up a resume?  I say this because too many journals contribute scant amount to their fields. But this is not about contribution, really, but for career reasons? With millions of articles published, what difference do any make to anyone? Well, you'll never know who in the world will read it.

[Parasaurolophus]

The others upthread have already identified the problems here, so I won't belabour the point.

I'll just add that in my field, where single-authorship is the norm and acceltance rates tend to be in the single digits, 100 lifetime publications would be extremely productive, and would almost certainly win you a place in the Royal Society of Canada.

One acquaintance of mine who just died at the age of 96 had something like 200 pubs and 30-odd books. I don't know of anybody in the field who's ever published more than that. (Though I have another friendly acquaintance in his eighties who's close-ish, minus ten or so books.)

[Cheerful]

I'll just add that in my field, where single-authorship is the norm and acceltance rates tend to be in the single digits, 100 lifetime publications would be extremely productive, and would almost certainly win you a place in the Royal Society of Canada.

One acquaintance of mine who just died at the age of 96 had something like 200 pubs and 30-odd books. I don't know of anybody in the field who's ever published more than that. (Though I have another friendly acquaintance in his eighties who's close-ish, minus ten or so books.)

Such numbers are nice?  30 [sole-authored?] books is not at all impressive to me.  I favor quality over quantity.  Alas, many favor the reverse.  I've seen many publishing games in my career -- academics responding to incentives others set for them.  For example, "researchers" who publish 50 useless variations on a simple theme with alternating groups of co-authors.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'll just add that in my field, where single-authorship is the norm and acceltance rates tend to be in the single digits, 100 lifetime publications would be extremely productive, and would almost certainly win you a place in the Royal Society of Canada.

One acquaintance of mine who just died at the age of 96 had something like 200 pubs and 30-odd books. I don't know of anybody in the field who's ever published more than that. (Though I have another friendly acquaintance in his eighties who's close-ish, minus ten or so books.)

Such numbers are nice?  30 [sole-authored?] books is not at all impressive to me.  I favor quality over quantity.  Alas, many favor the reverse.  I've seen many publishing games in my career -- academics responding to incentives others set for them.  For example, "researchers" who publish 50 useless variations on a simple theme with alternating groups of co-authors.

They're very high-quality contributions that span wildly different areas and absolutely do not recycle his previous work. He was a titan in the field.

But he also got to just dictate his books to the department secretary seventy years ago, so.

The other guy is a logician, and each of his books is also a significant new contribution to the development of the field.

My point is that this level of productivity is exceedingly rare.

[theteacher]

The question is-- why do you care? Unless these people are in your field and competing with you for jobs/funding, it has no impact on you.

I must understand my surroundings. But, unfortunately, there are already a few of those in my field and country of residence. So, competition is also one variable of the equation.

The data that purportedly supprots the idea of superpublishers is also defective.

I personally know many of of those super publishers.

I just do the other things people consider important in your field

This is a good point and the primary intention of my original post. I'm relatively new to the academic world. So, I want to hear pieces of advice from more senior members.

I'd also confess that I feel salty as I generally spend hundreds of hours just for publishing a single paper.

I don't understand how this is possible.

I'm also struggling to understand it :)

[Cheerful]

This is a good point and the primary intention of my original post. I'm relatively new to the academic world. So, I want to hear pieces of advice from more senior members.
I'd also confess that I feel salty as I generally spend hundreds of hours just for publishing a single paper.

Your feelings are understandable.  As long as you are doing your best, that is all you can and should do.  Avoid comparing yourself with others.

Corruption, "inside deals," favoritism, and cheating exist.  Avoid selling your soul and compromising your own ethics.  Hold fast to your integrity.

Quality is more important than quantity.  Be proud of your work if it is of high quality and completed ethically.  Good, smart people will recognize these things in your work, and in you.

[Ruralguy]

Most of us spend hundreds of hours on a single article for which we are the primary researcher. For those who have many more articles than this could possible add up to its because they direct others and collaborate at all sorts of different levels requiring various time commitments. So, you aren't a chump, but you might benefit from collaborations if your field and school and such value this.

[mleok]

I'm also struggling to understand it :)

I think you'll need an army of graduate students and postdocs in order to do this, which in turn requires a prodigious amount of research funding. Some of the people I know who are extremely productive in my field have a secondary appointment in China, where they do have an army of graduate students. But, let's be honest, a person who publishes on average a paper every few days isn't contributing anything substantial to the paper, so I don't believe that kind of insane publication rate actually improves their research reputation, on the contrary, it's easy to become a joke if most of the papers are fluff pieces.

[mleok]

Just do the best with the resources available to you, but if you're at a university where you're unable to recruit highly competent and motivated graduate students and postdocs, then comparing yourself to such superpublishers is not going to end well for your mental health.

[theteacher]

Very useful comments. Thanks, Cheerful, Ruralguy, and mleok!

[quasihumanist]

We did a search a few years ago where one of the applicants had 10 times as many publications as anyone else.

He was not seriously considered for the position.