news center

Fame may not follow frequent publication

Fame may not follow frequent publication

作者:甘沟薨  时间:2019-03-03 06:13:02  人气:

By ANDY COGHLAN Soviet scientists were among the most prolific during the 1980s, with one chemist averaging a paper every 3.9 days between 1981 and 1990. Robert Gallo, America’s most famous AIDS researcher, was the most cited scientist of the decade with 36 789 citations to his name between 1981 and 1990. These figures come from an analysis of the scientific literature by the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia. In its latest ScienceWatch bulletin, the institute names the 20 most prolific scientists. In a separate analysis, it measures the impact those 20 scientists have had in terms of the number of times other researchers have cited their papers. Yury Struchkov, a chemist at the Institute for Organoelemental Chemistry in Moscow, was the most prolific author, with 948 papers to his name. Stephen Bloom, an endocrinologist at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School in London, came second with 773. Soviet scientists occupied the third and fourth positions. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, came ninth with 428 papers, or one every 8.5 days. A very different picture emerges from the citation analysis, says David Pendlebury, the editor of ScienceWatch. Gallo came top of this league with 36 789 citations. His nearest rival was Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, wtth 17 756. Gallo says a realistic citation score should exclude public health papers that cite his reports of new viruses. ‘If you take them away my score might be a quarter of that reported,’ he says. Scientists from the USSR scored relatively badly in the citation league despite their prolific output. ‘The Soviet scientists, for all their output, seem to have had genuinely low impact,’ says Pendlebury. ‘That had to do in part with research they published in Russian.’ Clearly, he adds, the hierarchical structure of Soviet laboratories, with research chiefs directing the work of large numbers of scientists, has ‘something to do with such superhuman production’. Pendlebury says the analyses ‘put a sharp point on what constitutes authorship’. He maintains that junior people often resent their supervisors adding their names to a paper without contributing to the work. Bloom, whose papers on the biological functions of peptides have won widespread acclaim, disagrees. ‘There are probably more examples of well-known people not putting their names to a paper because they don’t rate it,