The complex ecosystem of hyperprolific authors

Dados Bibliográficos

ID21442004
AutoresJussara M Almeida (0000-0001-9142-2919, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, autor correspondente), Alessia Antelmi (0000-0002-6366-0546, University of Turin, autor correspondente), Marcos André Gonçalves (0000-0002-2075-3363, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, autor correspondente), Maria Angela Pellegrino (0000-0001-8927-5833, University of Salerno, autor correspondente)
Ano2026
Volume131
Fascículo3
Páginas1847-1895
Data de publicação2026-03-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoScientometrics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0138-9130 • E-ISSN: 1588-2861
EditoraSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s11192-026-05563-8
OpenAlexW7133188483
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências citadas122

In recent years, the rise of hyperprolific authors, researchers with exceptionally high publication counts, has drawn increasing attention in debates on research integrity and evaluation. While such productivity may reflect legitimate collaboration and large-scale science, it also raises concerns about questionable research practices, distorted incentives, and the reliability of scholarly assessment. Despite its prominence, the phenomenon remains poorly defined and inconsistently studied. This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on hyperprolific authorship to examine how it is defined, investigated, and perceived across disciplines. We identified 18 articles addressing hyperprolific authorship and 79 further contributions discussing related academic behaviors. Results show no consensus on thresholds or methodologies to identify hyperprolific authors, with approaches ranging from bibliometric analyses to qualitative assessments. The phenomenon is acknowledged across scientific domains, yet its interpretations diverge from being seen as a natural outcome of collaborative research to being framed as a statistical anomaly or a warning sign of misconduct. Its links to malpractice remain ambiguous, shaped by disciplinary norms, publication stages, and the intentionality of actors. By situating hyperprolific authorship within a broader ecosystem of academic (mis)behaviors, we conclude that it should not be reduced to a single category of misconduct but understood as a multifaceted, context-dependent phenomenon with important implications for research integrity and evaluation

Discipline · Misconduct · Natural (archaeology) · Phenomenon · Productivity · Qualitative research · Rigour · Sign (mathematics) · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Academic Publishing and Open Access · scientometrics and bibliometrics research