5 ms·

In Ricón's Fund People Not Projects III article [0] he relates: > Ioannidis et al. (2014) note there are 15M scientists that published anything in the 1996-201

In Ricón's Fund People Not Projects III article [0] he relates: > Ioannidis et al. (2014) note there are 15M scientists that published anything in the 1996-2011 period, but only 1% that has published every single year in this period. This smaller 150k-strong group accounts for 40% of all papers and 87% of all papers with >1000 citations. One percent seems like a good size for a major niche; those who do the bulk of the publishing. This is important, but if that's the only niche you're looking at you're bound to miss 99 percent of what you want to find. [0] https://nintil.com/newton-hypothesis https://nintil.com/newton-hypothesis Edit: Maybe the people that need to be funded most are secretaries for some of the other 99 percent.

JPLeRouzic 4y ago
> you're looking at you're bound to miss 99 percent of what you want to find. Or those 1% are real professional that know their stuff while the other are publishing because they are doing some internship, or publishing low quality articles on an obscure domain is a way to evade criticism (how many ALS experts in academia?) or other short commitment to a topic. I read a lot of literature on ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) and clearly 99% of publications have no value at all, even when their university claims of "a breakthrough". As far I know there were breakthroughs only every ~5 years (TDP-43 in 2006, C9orf72 in 2011, FUS 2010) and no similar breakthrough since. Big companies like Biogen, which bet much on various genetic (ASO) therapies, are now removing drugs from their pipeline. We clearly do not understand the field, despite publishing 15,000 articles per year!