.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Productivity does not equal usefulness
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1007/s11192-018-2982-5.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
For a recent commentary in Nature, Ioannidis et al. (Nature 561(7722):167-169, 2018) searched the Scopus database and identified those hyperprolific authors who have published more than one paper every 5days. The 265 authors who belong to this very productive class contribute disproportionately to the archive. We show the relationship between paper productivity (annual number of papers) and usefulness of research (annual number of papers which belong to the 1% most frequently cited in the corresponding subject categories and publication years) for 160,108 researchers. Based on our results, we suggest that the identification of hyperprolific authors should consider not only quantity, but also the usefulness of research activities (measured in terms of citations).
Keywords:
Hyperprolific authors
Bibliometrics
Publication output
Citation impact
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.