As discussed in previous findings, the top highly cited authors are extremely productive to the degree that it was called implausible. During 2017-2020, in these 4 years, Yong Sik Ok was found to publish 106 papers per year, Dan Tsang 90 papers per year and Jorg Rinlebe at 46 papers per year. The definition of hyper prolific authors is authors who publish more than one paper in 5 days or 73 papers per year [4]. In this case Yong Sik Ok and Dan Tsang fulfil and exceed this hyper prolific authors. Yong Sik Ok publishes a paper every 3.5 days, and Dan Tsang from China publishes a paper every 4 days.
It is generally not possible to publish a scientific paper in just 4 days. The process of publishing a scientific paper typically involves several steps, including conducting research, writing and revising the manuscript, submitting the manuscript to a journal, and going through the peer review process. Each of these steps can take a significant amount of time, and the entire process can take several months or even years from start to finish. That being said, it is possible to expedite some aspects of the publishing process if necessary. For example, suppose a paper is time-sensitive and needs to be published as soon as possible. In that case, the authors may be able to request an expedited review process, which could potentially reduce the review time. However, even with an expedited review process, it is unlikely that a paper could be published within 4 days.
In general, it is important to take the time necessary to thoroughly conduct research, write and revise the manuscript, and go through the peer review process in order to ensure that the paper is of high quality and meets the standards of the scientific community.
Another key cluster in the highly cited papers is led by Zeng Guang from Hunan university who published 70.5 papers per year. It is very interesting to note that from Table 1, cluster 1 led by Yong Sik Ok produce highly cited papers shared by many of his coauthors. As a result out of 14 top authors, only 5 didn't join any network and work indepently, while 7 belongs to Yong Sik Ok group and 2 belongs to Zeng Guang group. This result further cemented the idea that top authors of highly cited papers are dominated by few clusters. If one ones to have highly cited papers, the need to join a cluster. Fig. 3 shows the extension of such a cluster of authors.
It is also thought-provoking to note that, to paraphrase a famous statement by Dr. Drummond Rennie, editors have the decision to publish articles, and no one watches over their shoulders. The high amount of highly papers by these authors are linked with the amount of editorial positions held by these authors. It is a public knowledge that Yong Sik Ok, Daniel Tsang and Jorg Rinklebe maintain a network through editorial work on high impact factor journals such as Environmental Pollution, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Chemosphere, and several other high impact journals. According to Web of Science, Daniel CW Tsang has conducted 1054 verified peer reviews within a short period, with over 30 reviews completed per month in 2021. This statistics reveal that Daniel Tsang publishes 1 paper every 4 days and reviews 1 paper per day. As a result Daniel Tsang was awarded as Top Reviewers by many journals. Another paper investigating medical journals publication conclude a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. One should raise a red flag to identify journals that are suspected of biased editorial decision-making—a term called "nepotistic journals." To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices [5].
It is noteworthy that a highly productive scientist offers a higher probability of citations because they generate more works that are encouraged for citation. Moreover using a collaborative research strategy can have a positive effect on publishing output, exposure, and citation. Furthermore the conditioning of the data and science to maximize publications has been mentioned as a strategy to increase publications. Journals are more likely to publish studies with conclusive, encouraging findings that were written by well-known, incredibly productive authors.
One can create many strategies to increase citation and create highly cited papers, such as self-citation, reciprocal citation, or the creation of a network of researchers. It is not appropriate or ethical to try to boost citations in order to artificially increase the perceived impact or significance of a researcher's work. The purpose of citations is to acknowledge and build upon the work of others, and any attempt to manipulate citations in order to boost the impact of a researcher's work is considered to be a form of academic misconduct. Such behavior undermines the integrity of the scientific enterprise and can damage the reputation of the researcher and the research community as a whole [6].
Rather than trying to boost citations, researchers should focus on producing high-quality research that is original and valuable to their field. This includes conducting their research in a rigorous and ethical manner, accurately and transparently reporting their findings, and ensuring that their work is made available to the wider scientific community through publication in appropriate venues. If a researcher's work is truly impactful and valuable, it should be able to stand on its own merits and will naturally attract citations from other researchers [7].
Conclusions
This study conducted a survey of highly cited papers or top 1% cited articles published in 2013-2022 in Environmental Sciences journals. The results of 10153 papers disclose that the top cited papers are in 3 main topics: renewable energy, biochar and pollution, and global environmental issues. There is a tight network of scientists with a remarkable number of highly cited papers. This co-authorship strategy help increases citations and highly cited papers.
It is important to stress that there is not necessarily a link between a highly cited paper and research misconduct or citation manipulation. A paper may be highly cited for a variety of reasons, including the significance and novelty of the research, the quality of the writing, and the relevance of the topic to the scientific community. Citation manipulation can be motivated by various factors, such as the desire to increase the perceived impact and influence of one's research, boost one's research metrics or rankings, or secure funding or academic advancement. While it is possible for a highly cited paper to be the result of genuine interest and impact in the scientific community, in some cases, the high number of citations may be the result of citation boosting. It is important for the scientific community to be aware of this possibility and to take steps to prevent and address citation manipulation, in order to maintain the integrity and reliability of the scientific literature.
Overall, many factors can contribute to the citation of a scientific paper, and researchers can take a number of steps to increase the visibility and impact of their work. For example, publish in high-impact journals which tend to have a larger readership, promote the paper through social media and other channels, engage in active research such as participating in conferences, collaborating with other researchers, and staying up-to-date with the latest developments in the field. Moreover proper citation practices, such as citing relevant and recent literature and using a consistent citation style, can help to increase the visibility and credibility of a paper and make it more likely to be cited by others.
References
[1] Aksnes, D.W., 2003. Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research evaluation, 12(3), pp.159-170.
[2] Persson, O. (2010). Are highly cited papers more international?. Scientometrics, 83(2), 397-401.
[3] Newman, M. E. (2014). Prediction of highly cited papers. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 105(2), 28002.
[4] Ioannidis, J., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature 561, 167-169.
[5] Scanff, A., Naudet, F., Cristea, I.A., Moher, D., Bishop, D.V. and Locher, C., 2021. A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior. PLoS biology, 19(11), p.e3001133.
[6] Moris, Dimitrios. Highly prolific authors in medical science: from charisma to opportunism. J Balk Union Oncol 25.5 (2020): 2136-2140.
[7] Moris, D. Beware the Ides of March: The Destiny of Highly Prolific Authors. J Balk Union Oncol N 2020; 25(3): 1272-1276 .