by DrNuke on 12/29/21, 1:15 PM with 5 comments
by jryb on 12/29/21, 4:01 PM
That said, two papers a month is setting off my bullshit alarms - I'd take a hard look at those papers and just see if he's solving real problems or not.
by PragmaticPulp on 12/29/21, 1:25 PM
Without actual details, there’s nothing to really discuss. Surely you can look up some of his papers and read them, right?
Usually people churning out papers aren’t writing anything substantial in most of them. Could be plagiarizing other papers, in which case you could probably figure it out with some targeted searching.
But it should go without saying that he’s probably not actually making a breakthrough every other week like clockwork. If he brags about volume of publishing first but not really about what he’s studying, you probably have your answer.
by JPLeRouzic on 12/29/21, 2:06 PM
For example it looks the (in)famous Didier Raoult was cited as author (on average) in publications at least every three days in the last 10 years:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Raoult+Didier+marseill...
by huitzitziltzin on 12/29/21, 3:49 PM
Eg, in some parts of public health research and medicine you get your name on a paper by being the source of the data, whether you do any work or not.
Alternatively, you might put your name on everything any grad student in your lab produces.
There are also field-specific effects which push numbers up or down: it is easy to publish in medicine since there are so many journals and many do not have high standards (some do, but many do more).
In good journals in economics it is not uncommon for papers to spend years in the referee process so total publication numbers are low. (Bad journals in economics have much lower standards.)
by Phithagoras on 12/30/21, 6:06 PM