Expanding on the previous discussion about the mathematician who debunked the myth of fraudulent "super-publication powers" and identified indicators of "papermilling," (linked above) it is essential to shed light on a recent study that further reinforces these concerns. This study has brought to attention that approximately 10% of the most influential researchers worldwide, are producing papers at rates that defy credibility and reason. The study also examined 462 Nobel laureates, showing that legitimate publication rates typically plateau at around 20 papers per year. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280#abstract
In light of the ongoing concerns surrounding the prevalence of "super-publication powers," I have just a few minor comments. A previous study I referenced, which analyzed 90 million papers across 241 subjects, revealed that an excess of publications does not facilitate the turnover of central ideas within a field. Instead, it leads to the ossification of the established knowledge base. Moreover, in this context, it is worth revisiting Vladlen Koltun's perspective, as he has been a vocal critic of the current publishing culture. Koltun has explicitly argued that researchers should prioritize producing fewer but more impactful papers, emphasizing the need to reduce the focus on volume in favor of meaningful contributions to science https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/11/evaluating-researchers-in-fast-and.html
