How many papers a year is a reasonable number to publish before people start questioning whether you can publish that many and still warrant being an author?
A colleague sent me this image (thank you). Not sure where it came from but it's nice to see.
But as I previously mentioned (https://buff.ly/4di43Aw), I take these things with a pinch of salt as I don't really believe that I am in the world's top 2% of scientists (see the link above for further discussion).
I note that my sub-field includes image Processing. I might be a lot of things, but an image processor is not one of them. I also see that my h-index is given as 13. That is not right, if you look at my full publication list at @Scopus. My h-index is a lot higher.
Moreover, since my previous post, I have been looking a little closer at the Stanford list and one thing I have seen is that there are some people have published a paper every other day, over a career spanning many decades. Can we believe that these people are able to maintain that output, at a level of quality we would expect, and contribute to each paper that warrants them being an author? Perhaps there are such people? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
To come back to the original question. How many papers do you think a reputable scientist can publish each year before people start questioning whether that is too many?
Médecin cheffe de Service de chimie clinique
2wThank you for sharing!