ScienceGuardians™ Team Publication Analyzer

To ensure fair productivity benchmarks for research team leads, the ScienceGuardians Team Publication Analyzer includes the lead as a Full-Time Research Associate in the analysis. This assigns a minimum of 3 publications annually and a maximum of 6 publications annually to the lead.

This adjustment addresses:
1. Early-Career Research Leads, who may actively contribute to publications due to smaller team sizes.
2. Senior Research Leads in large teams, who might still engage in writing despite their leadership focus.

Hypothetical Example: Acceptable Publication Range for a Research Team Lead

Consider a hypothetical research team comprised of the following members:

5 Postdoctoral Researchers
1 Full-time Research Associate
2 Part-time Research Associates
7 PhD Students
5 MSc Students

This represents a reasonably large research team of 21 researchers (including the lead) working under the guidance of the research lead. To determine the acceptable range of publications for the research team lead, we can utilize the typical performance indicators identified by ScienceGuardians for each role:

Postdoctoral Researchers: 3 to 5 papers annually
Full-time Research Associates:  3 to 6 papers annually
Part-time Research Associates:  1.5 papers annually
PhD Students: 2 papers annually
MSc Students: 1 paper annually

Publication Calculation

Postdoctoral Researchers:
5 Postdocs x (3 to 5 papers) = 15 to 25 papers

Full-time Research Associates (including the lead):
(1 + 1) Full-time RAs x (3 to 6 papers) = 6 to 12 papers

Part-time Research Associates:
2 Part-time RAs x (1.5 papers) = 3 papers

PhD Students:
7 PhD Students x (2 papers) = 14 papers

MSc Students:
5 MSc Students x (1 paper) = 5 papers

Total Publication Range for the Team
Now, let’s sum these ranges to find the total expected publications from the team:

Minimum Total:
15 + 6 + 3 + 14 + 5 = 43 papers

Maximum Total:
25+ 12 + 3 + 14 +5 = 59 papers

Relevance of the Hypothetical Example

This hypothetical research team, consisting of 21 members (including the lead), is considered reasonably large in the context of academic and scientific research. While team sizes can vary widely depending on the field, most research teams typically consist of fewer than 20 members, especially in areas outside of large-scale collaborative disciplines like physics or genomics. In fact, smaller teams (often fewer than 10 members) are common in many academic disciplines, such as life sciences, social sciences, and engineering.

It is well documented that teams have increasingly replaced individual work as the dominant mode of knowledge production, particularly in fields requiring large-scale collaborations. Similarly, team sizes are generally smaller in disciplines with less collaborative frameworks, while larger teams are more typical in highly collaborative fields like experimental physics and genomics. These support the notion that a team of 21 members, considered in the Hypothetical Example, is relatively large in most academic contexts.

This distinction is important when using the ScienceGuardians Team Publication Analyzer, as the classifications—“Within Expected Range” (60 and below), “Cautionary Zone” (61 to 72), and “Critical Zone” (above 72)—are designed with the assumption that most research teams have fewer than 20 members. The thresholds reflect both typical team sizes and publication expectations, ensuring that the tool provides a realistic and fair evaluation of research team leads’ productivity.

By considering these team sizes and the corresponding publication benchmarks, the ScienceGuardians Team Publication Analyzer offers an evidence-based framework to assess research output, providing valuable insights for job applications, promotions, awards, and performance reviews.

Acceptable Publication Range for the Research Team Lead

Given the contributions from the team members, the acceptable range of publications for the research team lead could be aligned with the overall output, allowing for a reasonable assumption that the lead researcher, as a mentor and guide, would be expected to oversee this productivity.

Thus, the acceptable publication range for the research team lead would be approximately 43 to 59 papers annually, based on the collective efforts of the team.

This example reflects a research team size that aligns with the thresholds identified in prior studies. Ioannidis et al. (2018) classified “hyperprolific” authors as those who publish over 72 papers annually, and more recent research by Ioannidis et al. (2024) established 60 papers per year as the threshold for extreme publishing behavior. The estimated 43 to 59 papers for this research lead comfortably fits within these thresholds, demonstrating that well-managed research teams can achieve significant productivity, with the lead researcher facilitating and overseeing multiple projects.

References
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature, 561, 167-169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8

Ioannidis, J.P.A., Collins, T.A. & Baas, J. Evolving patterns of extreme publishing behavior across science. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05117-w

Dealing with Prolific Authors: A Cautionary Note

For individuals with publication numbers between 61 and 72, affairs such as job applications, promotions, and awards should be handled with caution. While high productivity may be justified by the size and efficiency of their research team, it is important to ensure the integrity of the output.

However, for individuals publishing more than 72 papers annually, such cases should be thoroughly investigated by a third-party evaluator or auditor to ensure that ethical standards and genuine scientific contributions are upheld. This extra layer of scrutiny helps maintain the integrity of the academic and research community by ensuring that extreme publication behavior aligns with best practices in research conduct.