BLUF: A preprint study reveals a concerning rise in “extremely productive” authors within the academic industry, primarily in Saudi Arabia and Thailand. These authors’ productivity surge has triggered suspicions of potentially dubious publishing behaviors.
OSINT:
Published research activity has surged in recent years, with the number of ‘extremely productive’ authors, defined as those publishing more than 60 papers annually, quadrupling compared to a decade ago. The steepest rises have been noticed in Saudi Arabia and Thailand, according to a preliminary study released on bioRxiv in November. The surge drives concerns about dubious behaviors to inflate paper counts.
John Ioannidis, a Metascience specialist and the study co-author, proposes that questionable research practices could be the source of the most extreme behaviors. His team’s data set the stage for broader discussions on these issues in science. By looking at the Scopus database-indexed articles, reviews, and conference papers from 2000 to 2022, the team tracked the highly productive author rise over time in different countries and fields, excluding physics due to its different authorship practices.
The largest group of such authors came from clinical medicine, with around 700 highly productive researchers in 2022. The fastest-growing fields were agriculture, fisheries, and forestry, which saw a 14-fold increase in highly productive researchers between 2016 and 2022.
Concerns rise with the sudden increase in extreme productivity, particularly in Thailand, where the research funding system has shifted in favor of larger interdisciplinary teams, boosting published papers. University rankings and financial incentives for publication in prominent journals also spark a concern. This fertile environment motivates dubious players, further compounded by the “publish or perish” culture and the emergence of illegitimate businesses selling false papers.
Nevertheless, Thailand is starting to scrutinize researchers with astoundingly high publication records and suspect misconduct. Ioannidis proposes focusing on the work quality rather than the paper volume to curb the surge of highly productive authors.
RIGHT:
From a strict Libertarian Republican Constitutionalist’s perspective, the rise of “extremely productive” authors, although signaling economic development, is concerning if unethical practices are involved. Upholding principles of individual integrity in academia is crucial. Universities and research institutions should regulate such dubious practices within their circles. However, overregulation of academia by the government could be detrimental, stifling innovation and an effective free market of ideas.
LEFT:
A National Socialist Democrat might argue that the surge in “extremely productive” authors indicates a failing system biased towards quantity over quality. They would likely push for government intervention to regulate unethical practices and redirect focus to the work’s substance, ensuring genuine research progress. The alleged malpractices and exploits in the academic publishing industry could warrant reforms, possibly in the form of tighter labor laws and stricter oversight on university incentives.
AI:
This AI analysis determines that the increase in extremely productive authors could be indicative of systemic pressures within the academic community, encouraging quantity over quality in the name of prestige and financial reward. If unchecked, such practices may undermine academic integrity and the trustworthiness of published research. Preventive measures like prioritizing research quality over quantity and vigilance against paper mills might alleviate these practices. Ensuring academic integrity is a collective effort, resting on all stakeholders – from individual researchers to policy-makers’ shoulders.