With the average number of 6-7 authors per (clinical) publication and an increasing trend for multi-authored articles there are now plenty of opportunities for industrious clinicians to publish. Here are just a few examples of super-achievers from the Infectious Disease space:
- “He authored more than 500 original papers, 330 book chapters, and 14 books”[1].
- “He published 548 peer-reviewed papers; 178 book chapters, editorials, and other commentaries; and 29 books and journal supplements”[2]
- According to SciSpace, he coauthored 509 papers[3].
By simple math, we can see that these gentlemen publish on average 1 piece every 2-3 weeks over many decades. This has raised concerns over what is too much, as to many this seems to be excessive productivity.
Reviews of the overproductive / hyperprolific author output describe it as an outlier phenomenon that needs to be reigned in by imposing stricter standards esp. for co-authorship. But this is absurd. We seem to be dealing with a narcissistic personality trait which craves recognition, likes the spotlight, and trades zealous productivity for promotional gains.
In this crazy pursuit for more and faster publication, we would like to ask some cynical / rhetorical questions: Is this enough? Can one do better? What is the maximum number of publications humanly possible for an ambitious academician? And will AI in the future change this landscape making writing as fast as reading?
Inflationary tendencies in publication output is not new. There is ghost writing ‘help’ by company-paid professionals, gratuitous inclusion in other people’s work, the tacit understanding that department head be included in the publication of younger team members, and duplication of work or serialization of monographs in the form of yearly updates. All this is legitimate work output; many journals now request details regarding the specific contribution of authors prior to publication. While it is hard to quantify ‘mentorship’ or intellectual contribution, the practice at many institutions is to give authorships to academics who have an interest in building their CVs. Clinical investigators at study sites that did well have routinely asked for inclusion in the list of authors, with a high chance of acceptance by study sponsors.
We are not talking about bad apples but legitimate publication work. Nonetheless, a high-profile case that points to the ‘darker’ side of the publication overachievers has come to light just recently. At National Institute on Aging (NIA), Eliezer Masliah, a top government employee and renowned research scientist, had to resign after an internal investigation discovered ‘mistakes’ in many of his publications[4]. SciSpace mentions him as an author of 1015 papers, other sources speak of >800 articles.
Iannidis et al. looked into the phenomenon of hyperprolific article producers. He found that about 30,000 people produced >50 articles in any given year, and several are besting this output to 70[5]. He mentions the important fact that selection for authorship is not uniformly standardized, with geographical and cultural variations. For instance, incentives to publish exist in some countries, and hierarchy may drive inclusion in the list of authors despite minimal actual ‘contribution’. The title of his article tells it all: ‘Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days’. It just shows that there is no upper limit to productivity[6]. Btw, he took care not to overcount by excluding minor publication products like presentations or abstracts.
We stand in awe of these leaders in the publication olympiad, their ability to connect and collaborate to amplify their resumes with articles is really impressive. These are true giants to emulate.
So let’s do the math: Assuming 35 years of post-graduation publication output for the average clinician at an academic institution, working 50 weeks per year, this amounts to 1750 weeks to publish 1750 articles following the “1 article every 5 day” rule.
High publication output is not just a trait of recognition-seeking individuals trying to meet and exceed the demands of institutional productivity requirements. There is a loud sucking sound coming from journals as well. Not a week goes by when we don’t hear about a newly launched journal asking for articles to fill their pages, promising superfast review and turn-around times. The wheels are turning fast for mutual benefit: proliferation of articles and proliferation of journals go hand-in-hand.
We predict that AI can accelerate the publication cycle considerably. The record to break stands at approx. 1000 articles held by pre-AI researchers. Let’s keep an eye out for the next Usain ‘Masliah’ Bolt publication champion.
REFERENCES
[1] Quinn. A tribute to John G. Bartlett, MD (1937–2021). J Clin Invest. 2021;131(6):e148371
[2] In memory: world STD research pioneer Dr. King Holmes. https://newsroom.uw.edu/news-releases/in-memory-world-std-research-pioneer-dr-king-holmes (accessed 4/29/2025)
[3] https://scispace.com/authors/jack-d-sobel-5gcs9r7ke0
[4] See https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion
[5] https://www.science.org/content/article/some-scientists-publish-more-70-papers-year-here-s-how-and-why-they-do-it
[6] Ioannidis. Nature 561, 167-169 (2018)
