Quantity over quality of publications: Are we using the right metrics to judge author's productivity and impact in biomedical research?

Abstract

The "publish and flourish" culture in the biomedical field has led to an increase in the number of publications worldwide, creating pressure on researchers to publish frequently. However, this focus on quantity over quality has resulted in an inflation of the number of authors listed in articles, leading to authorship issues and the rise of fraudulent or predatory scientific and medical journals. To maintain the credibility of scientific research, it is necessary to reform the publication metrics and explore innovative ways of evaluating an author's contributions. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, fail to capture the research's quality, significance, and impact. As a result, this viewpoint explores and highlights different metrics and novel methods by which an author's productivity and impact can be assessed beyond traditional metrics, such as the H index, i10 index, FWCI, HCP, ALEF, AIF, AAS, JIF, CNA, awards/honors, citation percentile, n-index, and ACI. By using multiple metrics, one can determine the true impact and productivity of an author, and other measures such as awards and honors, research collaborations, research output diversity, and journal impact factors can further aid in serving the purpose. Accurately assessing an author's productivity and impact has significant implications on their academic career, institution, and the broader scientific community. It can also help funding agencies make informed decisions, improve resource allocation, and enhance public trust in scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues and continue the ongoing discussion on best method to evaluate and recognize the contributions of authors in today's rapidly changing academic landscape.