The confused Nobelist who has no time for review activities

Informações recentes no universo dos bolseiros. Notícias da imprensa sobre ciência são também bem-vindas.
cientista sempre presente
cientista sempre presente
Mensagens: 1259
Registado: quarta dez 09, 2015 8:17 am
University/ Institute: Minho

The confused Nobelist who has no time for review activities

Mensagem por Torgal » terça jul 30, 2019 5:53 am ... scientists

yes he maybe right if we consider that authoring several thousands of papers like the "best scientists" seems to do (emails below) takes 200% of a lifetime in science. But in that case could this mean that the Highly Cited Researchers in here ... ed_reviews that have reviewed hundreds of papers are not in the group of the best scientists ? Or much more likely does it means that the Nobelist Dan Schechtman is just confused and that he should avoid such unscientific comments. Even because it does not make any sense that he thinks he can advise on something that he doesn´t do !

De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 20 de julho de 2019 12:27
Assunto: The kings of publications indexed in Web of Science ... blications
What´s the secret recipe to produce 4000 publications indexed in Web of Science ?

Could it be the very same mentioned in the email below ?

From: F. Pacheco Torgal
Sent: 14 de setembro de 2018 07:05
Subject: Highly flexible ethical standards ? ... id=2365942

Above link of interview with Stanford Full Professor John Ioannidis published on Science 2 days ago about "hyperprolific authors" that on average publish a paper every 5 days. See country distribution below:
The 265 hyperprolific authors worked in 37 countries, with the highest number in the United States (n = 50), followed by Germany (n = 28) and Japan (n = 27). The proportion from the United States (19%) is roughly similar to its share of published science. Germany and Japan are over-represented. There were disproportionally more hyperprolific authors in Malaysia (n = 13) and Saudi Arabia (n = 7), countries both known to incentivize publication with cash rewards

The area with more cases is Medical and Life Sciences. How come an area that represents less than 20% of the scientific production has 50% of hyperprolific authors? Could it be the same reason why this area has around 60% of all retracted papers ?

An interesting part of the paper is when Ioannidis mention:
“When cardiologists become directors of major clinical and research centers, for example, they can see their authorship go up 10-fold. Their names get embedded in what their center produces. It’s a norm that field has adopted, even though it doesn’t necessarily meet rigorous authorship standards.”