Identifying and analyzing extremely productive authors in intensive care medicine: A scientometric analysis





Abstract


Introduction


Clinical progress relies heavily on research, however, recent years have seen distortions in this process due to the “publish or perish” model. This model is further amplified by team science, leading to inflated author counts and metrics. Recently the rise of hyperprolific (HA) and almost hyperprolific (AHA) authors has been highlighted in the global literature scenario, but data on intensive care medicine (ICM) is lacking. This study aims to investigate HA and AHA authors in ICM and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on publication rates.


Material and methods


We identified authors publishing in ICM journals indexed by Scopus from 2019 to 2023, retrieving their Scopus IDs, publication details, and gender. HA were defined as authors who published at least 73 articles per year, while AHA as authors who published more than 60. The effect of COVID-19 literature was assessed by excluding COVID-related articles from the dataset.


Results


We identified 42860 articles in ICM journals, involving 186150 unique authors with a median of 5 publications per author. Only 248 (0.1 %) were extremely productive, with 131 being hyperprolific (HA). Removing COVID-19 papers significantly reduced HA and AHA counts by up to 40 %. Extremely productive authors were predominantly male (91.5 %) and globally distributed, primarily from Europe, Asia, and the Americas.


Conclusions


Hyperprolific authors in ICM represent a very small minority. These authors are typically related to ICM, male, senior researchers with a global distribution, who publish high-quality research through a significant research network.


Highlights





  • EP authors represent only 0.1 % of ICM researchers between 2019 and 2023.



  • Male authors make up 91.5 % of EP authors in critical care research.



  • EP authors often publish outside ICM, suggesting non-intensivist backgrounds.



  • Removing COVID-related papers reduces EP publication rates by 40 %.



  • The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced EP authors’ publishing rates.



List of abbreviations


AHA


Almost Hyperprolific Author


EP


Extremely Productive


HA


Hyperprolific Author


ICM


Intensive Care Medicine



Introduction


Clinical progress is based upon clinical research. We can compare clinical research to a wall constructed by several different bricks. Each of these bricks should ideally have two fundamental roles: strengthening the base over which future research is built and heightening the wall.


However, especially in recent years [ ], some distortion has occurred in the clinical research process. In fact, researchers are pushed to produce as many articles as they could as a frequent publication rate is one of the methods at scholar’s disposal to demonstrate academic talent to peers [ ] in a “publish or perish” model.


The distort rationale of this model is based on the assumption that academic promotion, grants, personal and professional recognition are usually granted to researchers able to outperform their colleagues in terms of metrics such as H-index, number of citations and, obviously, number or publications [ ].


This model has been further facilitated by team science, where numerous researchers join forces in large research groups to pursue multiple projects simultaneously. This collaboration has led to an inflation in the number of authors per article and has also impacted the individual metrics of each author [ ].


In a recent research article by Ioannidis et al. [ ] an exponential increase over the years in the number of hyperprolific (HA) and almost hyperprolific (AHA) authors across various research fields. The first are defined as the authors who publish a research article every five days, while the second publish one every six days. However, data relative to authors publishing in intensive care medicine (ICM) is actually missing.


The primary objective of our research was to investigate and describe the pool of HA and AHA among the authors who publish in journals related ICM, while our secondary objective was to investigate the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of publication.



Material and methods



Authors identification


For this study, we identified relevant authors as those who had published at least one article between 2019 and 2023 in a journal indexed by Scopus within the “Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine” subject area, as per the 2022 Scopus CiteScore rankings.


The full list of included journals (100 journals) is available as supplementary material for consultation (see Additional File 1).


We then searched for full articles published in these journals between 2019 and 2023, retrieving all the authors with valid Scopus IDs from each article.


To determine the productivity of each retrieved author, we searched the Scopus database for all full articles for each identified author, including even those outside the “Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine” subject area.


To identify relevant articles we first performed a search with the following string: “PUBYEAR > 2018 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (DOCTYPE (ar) OR DOCTYPE (ip) OR DOCTYPE (re)) AND JOURNAL_ID” , where we substituted the “JOURNAL_ID” with the ID taken from the list of critical care journals published by scopus. We then extracted all the AUTHOR_IDs of all the authors of all the articles returned by the previous search and searched for all publications for each author in the same timespan, using the following string: “PUBYEAR > 2018 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (DOCTYPE (ar) OR DOCTYPE (ip) OR DOCTYPE (re)) AND AUTHOR_ID”. The search was performed on 28th of Febrary.


Full papers included the Scopus categories “article” and “review” All other items, such as “editorial”, “note”, “letter”, “correction”, “conference papers” and others, were excluded from the count.


For each retrieved publication we extracted: the list of authors expressed as ScopusID, the paper title, the keywords, the publication year, the number of co-authors, the number of citations.


Gender of the identified authors was determined by searching for the profile picture retrieved in institutional sites, news outlets or on the personal page of social networks such as ResearchGate.



Definitions


Based on previously published studies in the field [ , ], we defined HA as those who published at least 73 original research articles (approximately one paper every five days), while AHA were identified as those who published more than 60 articles in a single year (one research article every six days). The sum of HA and AHA authors are called “extremely productive” (EP) authors.



COVID related literature


To identify the effect of COVID related literature we created a subset of the database removing all the articles containing at least one of the following strings: “COVID”, “Sars-cov-2”, “Sars-cov2”, “corona” or “pandemi∗” in the title or among the listed keywords; the retrieved publications were then manually checked to ensure their relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.



Statistic


Normality of continuous data was investigated with the Shapiro Wilk test. Normal distributed variables were reported as mean and standard deviation, while non normal data was reported as median and interquartile range, or minimum maximum as appropriate, categorical variables were reported as numbers and percentages.


Data extraction from the Scopus database was performed using a custom Python script (Python 3.11, Python Software Foundation) and the library Pybliometrics [ ], this library is a Python based tool to pull, cache and extract data from the Scopus database.



Results


Between 2019 and 2023, we identified a total of 42860 articles published in ICM journals with a median of 242 (168–628.5) articles per journal.


Initially, from these articles we identified a total of 186150 unique Scopus IDs.


Searching for the productivity of the identified authors we retrieved a total of 898734 articles with a median 5 (2–15) global publications per author and more detailed metrics are displayed in Table 1 .



Table 1

Overview of publications and hyperprolific authors.

















































































Year Publications Hyperprolific authors in ICM Overall [ ]
ICM Pubs n ICM Pubs/auth [Q1-Q3] (min – max) Total Pubs n Tot Pubs/auth [Q1-Q3] (min-max) HA (n) Publications median[IQR] AHA (n) Publications median[IQR] HA (n) AHA (n)
2019 7239 0 [0 – 0] (0–38) 148254 1 [0–2] (0–152) 30 88 [76.2–90] 38 65 [62–67] 30/360 (8.3 %) 38/355 (10.7 %)
2020 8526 0 [0–1] (0–44) 171893 1 [0–3] (0–172) 49 85 [78−107] 47 65 [62–67] 49/431 (11.4 %) 47/414 (11.3 %)
2021 9424 0 [0–1] (0–44) 200678 1 [0–4] (0–240) 84 87 [78−106] 80 65 [62–68] 84/568 (14.7 %) 80/572 (14.0 %)
2022 9115 0 [0–1] (0–30) 195547 0 [ ] (0–262) 74 86 [80−104] 80 64 [61–68] 74/674 (11.0 %) 80/592 (13.5 %)
2023 8556 0 [0–1] (0–33) 182362 0 [ ] (0–194) 54 83 [77–96] 36 65 [62–67]

AHA: Almost Hyperprolific Authors,HA: Hyperprolific authorsICM:Intensive Care Medicine, Pubs: publications Q:Quartile. “Overall data” are taken from the research article by Ioannidis et al. [ ]. It should be noted that their study did not investigate the year 2023, which is why data for that year are missing.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 11, 2025 | Posted by in ANESTHESIA | Comments Off on Identifying and analyzing extremely productive authors in intensive care medicine: A scientometric analysis

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access