The incredible productivity and ability to produce 3 paper per week would usually indicate rush or low quality papers. However, this is not the case for Yong Sik Ok and Dan Tsang, who managed to gain highly cited papers so easily (Table 5).
Analyzing the data, we can observe that the number of highly cited papers for these authors that appear to be unrealistically high. For example, Yong Sik Ok was recorded to publish 59 papers in 2022, and 10 of the papers are listed as highly cited papers. Similarly in 2019, Ok published 120 papers and 26 papers are highly cited. The ability to publish copiously and easily being highly cited rapidly beg the question of how and why?
While previous bibliometric studies (e.g. Abdeljaoued et al. 2020; Kumar et al. 2023; Qin et al. 2022) highlight the value of publication data and the potential for data-driven analysis in biochar research, they overlook the ethical concerns associated with hyperprolific publishing and citation boosting. Addressing these ethical considerations is essential for upholding the integrity and reliability of scientific literature.
Hyperprolific publishing may also prioritize quantity over rigorous peer review, compromising the integrity and reliability of scientific literature. Citation boosting, on the other hand, involves artificially inflating the number of citations to a particular article or author through manipulative practices, such as self-citation, citation rings, or coercive citation requests. For example, some of these authors are well-known editors in some journals. Dan Tsang in Web of Science was recorded to review 20–30 papers per month. This means Dan Tsang publishes a paper every 2.5 days and also review 1 paper per day (including weekends and public holidays).
The reward for highly citation including high h-index, being listed as highly cited researchers by Clarivate. Highly cited research is seen as influential and impactful in the academic community. High citation counts can positively impact researchers' career prospects. It can help in securing grants, promotions, and tenure. Achieving high citation counts can enhance a researcher's reputation and contribute to their overall prestige within the academic community. It can lead to invitations to serve on editorial boards, conference committees, and prestigious academic societies.
It is important to remember that some would pursue unethical means to gain high citations. This negative behavior distorts the true impact and influence of research and undermines the integrity of citation-based metrics, such as the h-index or journal impact factor.

Conclusions

In conclusion, biochar as hyperbole publication in soil research is examined and worrisome practices are critically reviewed. The article raises concerns regarding the feasibility and ethical implications of hyperprolific authors in biochar who publish an exceptionally high number of papers and authors who accumulate an unusually high number of citations. While their productivity may initially seem impressive, it begs the question of whether such output is realistic and whether it compromises the quality and integrity of the research. The analysis of highly cited papers reveals the presence of closely collaborating groups of authors, with notable ring leaders such as Yong Sik Ok, Daniel C.W. Tsang, and Bin Gao. These individuals demonstrate strong connections within their respective publication and citation networks.
The article also highlights cases of hyper prolific authors (Ok, Tsang, Gao, Zeng, Rinklebe) who have published an exceptionally high number of papers per year, sometimes averaging several papers per week. Such rates raise doubts about the thoroughness and rigor of the research process. It is unlikely that a researcher or a group of researchers can conduct extensive and rigorous studies within such short timeframes, leading to concerns about rushing or sacrificing quality for quantity.
Moreover, the article examines the same group authors who have accumulated an unusually high number of citations. While a high citation count can be an indicator of the impact of their research, it also raises questions about the reliability and accuracy of the citations. In addition, the potential for self-citation, citation manipulation, or inflated citation counts due to collaboration networks needs to be considered.
The feasibility and ethics of hyperprolific authorship and exceptionally high citation counts must be critically examined to ensure that the scientific community upholds principles of quality, integrity, and responsible research. While factors such as co-authorship and involvement in collaborative projects may contribute to high publication rates, assessing whether these rates are achievable without compromising the scientific process is important. It is also important to ethically define what constitutes authorship. Further investigations and discussions are warranted to understand the mechanisms that enable hyperprolific authorship and the implications for the scientific community.
Hyperprolific publishing raises ethical concerns and dilemmas:
1.       Quality vs. Quantity: Hyperprolific publishing can put pressure on researchers to prioritize quantity over quality. This may lead to rushed or superficial research, compromising the rigor and validity of the findings. Ethical concerns arise when researchers prioritize quantity at the expense of maintaining high standards of scientific integrity.
2.       Authorship: Determining authorship and contributions becomes challenging in hyperprolific publishing. It may lead to dilemmas related to properly acknowledging and attributing the contributions of individuals involved in the research. Unethical practices such as honorary authorship or excluding deserving contributors can arise when there is an excessive focus on publishing as many papers as possible.
3.       Research Misconduct: Hyperprolific publishing can increase the risk of research misconduct. With the pressure to produce a large volume of research, researchers may be tempted to engage in practices such as data fabrication, plagiarism, or salami slicing (splitting a single study into multiple publications).
4.       Reviewer and Editor Fatigue: Hyperprolific publishing can strain the peer review system. Reviewers and editors may face increased workloads, leading to fatigue and potentially compromising the quality and thoroughness of the peer review process. This can hinder the ability to identify flaws, ensure ethical conduct, and maintain high publication standards.
5.       Resource Allocation: Hyperprolific publishing can result in an uneven distribution of research resources. Researchers who engage in hyperprolific publishing may receive disproportionate funding, recognition, and career advancement opportunities compared to others who focus on producing fewer but higher-quality publications. This imbalance can create ethical concerns related to fairness and equity in resource allocation.
6.       Reproducibility and Transparency: Hyperprolific publishing can hinder reproducibility and transparency efforts. With a large volume of publications, it may be challenging for researchers to provide the necessary data, code, or materials to allow others to replicate or build upon their work. Lack of reproducibility and transparency can impede scientific progress and erode public trust in research.
7.       Overlooking Negative Results: Hyperprolific publishing may incentivize researchers to focus on publishing positive or significant results, while neglecting negative or inconclusive findings.
Addressing these ethical dilemmas requires promoting responsible research practices, emphasizing quality over quantity, fostering a culture of integrity, and ensuring adequate support and resources for researchers. Institutions, funding agencies, and the research community as a whole play a crucial role in establishing guidelines and promoting ethical conduct in hyperprolific publishing.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Prof. Phillippe Baveye from Paris University for suggesting the topic of Biochar and encouragement to pursue the research on this topic. 

References

Abduh, Akira. "Who are the hyper prolific authors in environmental sciences?." EartharXiv (2023). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5WT0R
Abdeljaoued, Emna, et al. "Bibliometric analysis of the evolution of biochar research trends and scientific production." Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 22 (2020): 1967-1997.
Allohverdi, Tara, et al. "A review on current status of biochar uses in agriculture." Molecules 26.18 (2021): 5584.
Baveye, Philippe C. "Bypass and hyperbole in soil research: Worrisome practices critically reviewed through examples." European Journal of Soil Science 72.1 (2021): 1-20.
Baveye, Philippe C. "Unknown economic costs of biochar applications to soils: They should be considered in the on-going debate." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 192 (2023): 106911.
Jha, Pramod, et al. "Biochar in agriculture–prospects and related implications." Current science (2010): 1218-1225.
Kumar, Abhishek, et al. "Multifaceted applications of biochar in environmental management: a bibliometric profile." Biochar 5.1 (2023): 11.
Lehmann, Johannes, John Gaunt, and Marco Rondon. "Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems–a review." Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 11 (2006): 403-427.
Li, Dongyang, et al. "Biochar-related studies from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometrics-based review." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27 (2020): 2898-2908.
Liu, Wu-Jun, Hong Jiang, and Han-Qing Yu. "Emerging applications of biochar-based materials for energy storage and conversion." Energy & environmental science 12.6 (2019): 1751-1779.
Qian, Kezhen, et al. "Recent advances in utilization of biochar." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015): 1055-1064.
Qin, Fanzhi, et al. "Biochar in the 21st century: A data-driven visualization of collaboration, frontier identification, and future trend." Science of The Total Environment 818 (2022): 151774.