Show item record

dc.contributor.authorFanelli, Daniele
dc.contributor.authorLarivière, Vincent
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-03T13:49:50Z
dc.date.availableNO_RESTRICTIONfr
dc.date.available2020-04-03T13:49:50Z
dc.date.issued2016-03-09
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1866/23179
dc.publisherPublic library of sciencefr
dc.rightsCe document est mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Paternité 4.0 International. / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleResearchers’ individual publication rate has not increased in a centuryfr
dc.typeArticlefr
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversité de Montréal. Faculté des arts et des sciences. École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'informationfr
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0149504
dcterms.abstractDebates over the pros and cons of a “publish or perish” philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward “quantity” at the expense of “quality,” because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning (“salami slicing”), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results. To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science. The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century. Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing. Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated.fr
dcterms.isPartOfurn:ISSN:1932-6203fr
dcterms.languageengfr
UdeM.ReferenceFournieParDeposantResearchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century Fanelli, D. et Larivière, V. (2016). Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0149504. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149504fr
UdeM.VersionRioxxVersion publiée / Version of Recordfr
oaire.citationTitlePLoS one
oaire.citationVolume11
oaire.citationIssue3


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show item record

Ce document est mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Paternité 4.0 International. / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RightsCe document est mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Paternité 4.0 International. / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.