The “Science Publishing Complex”;
Using the entire Scopus database, we estimated that there are 15,153,100 publishing scientists (distinct author identifiers) in the period 1996-2011. However, only 150,608 (<1%) of them have published something in each and every year in this 16-year period (uninterrupted, continuous presence [UCP] in the literature). This small core of scientists with UCP are far more cited than others, and they account for 41.7% of all papers in the same period and 87.1% of all papers with >1000 citations in the same period.
The analysis in the referenced article is far too simplistic.
I have published papers in some of the top engineering journals, and have read hundreds if not thousands of publications as part of the work I have done over more than two decades.
There are some researchers who publish at least once per year and their work makes at best marginal advancements, and is often not even worth publishing. Elmasry, when he was a prof at Waterloo, was a great example of that. Yet despite the fact that the work is marginal at best, these “researchers” get grants etc. because they churn out papers (almost always aided by piles of graduate students who do the work).
There are some researchers who publish at least once per year and their contributions are always significant. These are the kings (and queens) of science and engineering. There are very few people like this.
Then there are also some researchers who are working on sufficiently hard problems that there is no need to publish once per year. They show up with one publication every few years and it is so significant that they don’t need anything more than that. These researchers are usually in a position where they don’t have to chase funding every year. Major contributions to science and engineering have come via this group of people.
Climate scientists are in the first category in my description above: those who publish voluminous quantities of crap.
not everything printed is worth reading.
Come now, BC, “simplistic” is far too uncollegial a term. Let’s say there is room for further analysis…and another paper! 🙂
Still, it’s an interesting paper. As Ioannidis wrote, “the best course of action…can be debated” so I can see both sides of the political spectrum abusing it to support their views on funding priorities – and how some would conflate this core with a publishing complex. If only it were that simple…
In my experience*, those who publish heavily and consistently spend the largest part of their waking life working – chasing the funding, supervising the students (the canard that this is “exploiting the work of millions of young scientists” wears thin – do they spring fully formed from the mind of Jupiter?), hitting the conferences (at least three weeks per year to be even modestly successful), keeping up on the literature (yes, most is crap, but which?), reviewing grants and papers (that evil peer review), writing papers (more an effort in teaching students to write), all while teaching (most researchers are in universities and are required to teach, although the more successful do less) and dealing with increasingly insane administrative requirements (something about accountability and transparency). And yet some people seem to think it odd that the ranks of the scientifically successful are as rarified as those of equally successful businessmen.
How very strange.
* ~25 years research experience (academia and industry), ~70 refereed papers, ~800 citations, > millions in funding…and still not part of the 1%”. Sigh…must…try…harder…