On March 1st, an intriguing paper authored by Lutz Bornmann, a distinguished recipient of the Solla Prize Medal, was published in the journal Scientometrics. This study unveils a research program focused on examining productivity variances within the realm of science. Central to this program is the Anna Karenina Principle (AKP), which posits that success in research is contingent upon a constellation of interrelated prerequisites. According to the AKP, significant achievements arise when all necessary conditions are met synergistically. Conversely, the absence of even one prerequisite inevitably leads to failure. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-04962-z#Sec5
While acknowledging Lutz Bornmann's contributions, it's essential to note that his focus on lauding "high producers" may be somewhat misplaced given the current deluge of research papers. As I emphasized in my communication dated January 21st, "the scientific community must undertake a pivotal shift—an overdue course of action, underscored by the esteemed researcher Vladen Koltun. This shift entails moving away from the current norm of excessively prioritizing the quantity of publications...the Science that this vulnerable world needs is certainly not that which simply translates into a (harmful) deluge of absolutely irrelevant publications (which very few read and which no one takes the time to cite) but rather that Science which causes an impact and which (positively) transform people’s lives."
PS - Find below the email I sent to scientist Lutz Bornmann:
Estemeed Lutz Bornmann,
I recently delved into your paper titled 'Skewed Distributions of Scientists’ Productivity: A Research Program for Empirical Analysis,' which I highlighted in one of my blog posts. It sparked a crucial inquiry for me. In today's landscape of overwhelming publication volumes (that is obstructing the rise of new ideas), with thousands of 'super-scientists' generating an average of one paper daily, and with the assertion from a Clarivate Analytics director that 'publishing 2 or 3 articles per week is indicative of poor scientific ethics,' do you not worry that your recognition of 'high producers' might inadvertently exacerbate this situation ?
