Number of papers is still a meaningless indicator of who has the ‘research crown’, even if only at one conference. I’m sure you are aware that quality and quan

Number of papers is still a meaningless indicator of who has the ‘research crown’, even if only at one conference. I’m sure you are aware that quality and quantity are two different things. Also, the title is ambiguous and not making the narrow claim you assert. The title is not reasonable at all. It’s obvious clickbait. Not sure why it’s worth defending it.