Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days

Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days

Nature 561, 167-169 (2018)
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8

(Full article. No paywall. PDF link.)

 

In @Brian Hughes' book Psychology in Crisis, I just learnt (amongst many things in there) a rather horrifying fact. Because of the way the system works, scientists score kudos points from the papers they publish, as well as from how many times they are cited in other papers; that is fine with me in principle. But the citation scores do not distinguish between whether a citation applauds good science or is slamming bad science. So the various references to PACE in all the justifiably critical papers on it, actually bolsters these people's notional track record! The system really does need some overhauling.

 

Anyone doing this should IMO be stuck off, disbarred, whatever the correct term is.

When I consider that 'reputable' science involves some thought as to a proposal, acquiring funding, ethics approval, recruitment, actual trials/testing of the hypothesis, writing a paper, getting it peer reviewed, publishing, the very notion that someone can do this 72 times a year is absurd and shows they may not be doing things properly, and if they aren't doing things properly, don't publish them - or fund them - or give them a car parking space, or a job.

That sort of turnover should be used by the 'authorities' to identify rogue elements, prior to dealing with them in an appropriate manner.

 

You don't really need to worry. The only things that citation number really matters for is promotion and tenure. These people are all professors already and mostly retiring.

 

Incorrect information also remains uncorrected, or corrected in some way that doesn't make it clear to readers that there is a problem.

In some ways, the way schools are run is more rigorous than science. For one, students aren't asked to rate each other's homework (let alone their own *cough* Cochrane review *cough). Two, quantity of homework done isn't a substitute for quality. Three, if students perform poorly they can actually face consequences.

 

The reason I'm unhappy with it is that it's just plain wrong ... and so very 'unscientific'. Looking after the pennies so the pounds look after themselves sort of thing.

 

Had a quick look at Trudie Chalders publications and she knocks out one or two a month!
eg: 2011 -20 , 2014 - 14, 2016 - 21, 2017 -25, 2018 -18

(figures I have given might not be 100% accurate and might include the odd review)

eta:
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en...rderByPublicationYear&page=4&descending=false

 

Wessely likes to point out that he has his name on over 800 papers, which is about one every 13.5 days over his 30 year career.

 

Not always. What happens in some cases is a small number of senior scientists oversee a huge number of more junior scientists. They do the work, and the senior scientists keep watch. When the paper gets published their names go to the end. They are involved, but not doing the base research themselves. This can happen in very large scientific institutions.

If they are not in such an institution then they should be investigated, but who is there to do that?

 

I am more concerned about narrow interest groups producing smaller numbers of RCTs using poor methodology, such as with a lot of CBT research. Those can make their way into evidence based reviews. PACE comes to mind, and the whole CBT/GET saga.

 

Izal used to have its name on a lot more.