ArticlePloS one2016
Researchers' Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-assessment of bias in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Pooled it
- Ten simple rules for suggesting reviewers during a paper submission.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Authority and Authorship: Examining Leadership's Role in Medical Publications.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Appraisal of the Use of Proteomics Methodological Approaches and Technologies on Sheep and Goat Research and Clinical Work.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Is a data deluge dampening our idea generation capability?Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2025Review
- No Trespassing! Abandoning the Novice/Expert Problem.Erkenntnis · 2025Article
- Scientometrics Evaluation of Published Scientific Papers on the Use of Proteomics Technologies in Mastitis Research in Ruminants.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- "The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice.PloS one · 2023Article
- Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2023Article
- Article
- Ten simple rules for managing communications with a large number of coauthors.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- The narrowing of literature use and the restricted mobility of papers in the sciences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Intersectional inequalities in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Debates over the pros and cons of a "publish or perish" philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward "quantity" at the expense of "quality," because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning ("salami slicing"), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results. To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science. The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century. Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing. Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.