Rising quantitative productivity and shifting readership in academic publishing: Bibliometric insights from monkeypox literature

Abstract

The sudden spread of the monkeypox virus has been accompanied by an increase in the scientific interest in the virus. More than 1,400 PubMed-indexed documents have been authored by about 5,800 unique authors, averaging around 120 publications per month. This sheer rise in the number led us to explore the content published in the literature. We discovered more than 30% of the documents are Quantitative Productivity (QP) i.e., papers that illustrate the emerging trends of parachute concerns, modified salami tactics, cyclic recycling, and excellence in redundancy. In addition, we found few common hyper-prolific authors previously identified in the COVID-19 literature. Further, we share our experience in publishing monkeypox literature and highlight the growing readership and citation interest in editorials, commentaries, and correspondences that were thought to be uncitable in the medical literature. As long as the scientific community and public demand, the supply of such papers will continue, with no responsibility on the authors, journals, or the reader. Since overhauling the current system is an arduous task, we propose the optimization of existing retrieval services that would selectively filter documents based on article type (requires standardization of definitions) to dilute the crowding out effects of quantitative productivity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.