Introduction
Scientific research papers publication is an important way for scientists to share their work and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. Publishing scientific papers can be crucial for career growth and professional recognition, as it can assist scientists build their reputations and knowledge in their fields [1,2].
Publishing papers is widely seen as a crucial sign of a researcher's productivity and effect in academic and research contexts. For research funding, teaching positions, and other chances, researchers with a high volume of publications or publications in high impact journals are frequently considered as more qualified and competitive.[3].
It is crucial to stress that publishing papers is not the only indicator of a researcher's accomplishments or contributions. When assessing a researcher's career, other elements including the research's quality and impact may also be significant. Citation metrics are used to gauge a publication, author, or research group's influence and impact. They are frequently employed in academic settings to assess the relevance and quality of research, to compare the relative importance of various publications or researchers, and to spot trends and patterns in the field. To assess the significance and effect of research, citation metrics are frequently combined with other measures of study quality, such as peer review. However, they are not infallible and are susceptible to bias and manipulation. They ought to be employed cautiously and in conjunction with other tools for assessing the caliber of study as a result.
The quantity of papers is closely related to citation metrics. The number of highly cited publications increases with the number of papers a researcher produces, according to one study [2]. The desire to publish as many articles as possible is a motivation for seasoned researchers. A researcher can publish more articles and become more well-known and acquire more citations as a result.
One can publish two or three papers a week by expanding the scale of the publication, for instance by working with a network of researchers within the field. As a result of the joint publication with coauthors from this network, this method can increase one's citations. A high citation count is highly advantageous, as evidenced by the need to get in the Top 2% Scientists at Stanford University and achieve the highly acclaimed Highly Cited Researchers list by Clarivate [3,4].
This raises the question how much is too much. Hyperprolific authors are scientists who produce a very large volume of work in a relatively short period of time. These authors may write 2 or 3 or 4 papers per week. Some hyperprolific authors are able to produce so much work that they are considered to be among the most productive writers in history. But is it possible?
Recently, a new ranking from Stanford University features the world’s top 2% most influential scientists [3,4]. This list, led by Professor John PA Loannidis, is compiled using Scopus citation information. This list also offers an analysis of possible hyperprolific authors and their contribution.
Ioannidis et al. [1] wrote “Authorship is the coin of scholarship — and some researchers are minting a lot.” A research in biomedical journals reveals a nepotistic behaviour, papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission [5]. Few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. Prof Ioannidis further mentioned hyperprolific authors publish a paper every five days. This study aims to discover hyperprolific authors in the top 2% list.