Drawing on a large-scale bibliometric dataset covering over two million scholars globally from 2017 to 2019, authors of the article "Hyperprolific authorship: Unveiling the extent of extreme publishing in the ‘publish or perish’ era" Giovanni Abramo and Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo explored the prevalence, distribution, and impact of hyperprolific authorship, as well as its broader implications for research practices and academic integrity.

It was identified 6750 hyperprolific authors – constituting approximately 0.3 % of the total dataset. Fields like Chemistry, Biomedical Research, and Clinical Medicine exhibited disproportionately high concentrations of hyperprolific authors, reflecting their inherently collaborative and publication-intensive nature. On the other hand, fields such as Political and Social Sciences, Economics, and Psychology had significantly lower concentrations, highlighting disciplinary differences in research practices and publication standards. Geographically, countries with robust research funding infrastructures, such as China, the United States, and Germany, featured the highest absolute numbers of hyperprolific authors. However, smaller countries such as Saudi Arabia, Denmark, and Australia displayed unexpectedly high relative concentrations, suggesting the influence of national academic policies and incentives.

The rise of hyperprolific authorship brings both opportunities and challenges for the scientific community. While high productivity can reflect efficiency, collaboration, and resourcefulness, it also raises ethical concerns about authorship practices, fairness in credit allocation, and the over-reliance on quantitative metrics in research evaluation.

 
Source https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725000227#sec0010

Another high-profile case has interested scientists. Read now