6 ms·

John PA Ioannidis, one of the authors of that paper (which is from 2018 btw) has published an average of 60 papers per year for the last decade, and more than 1

by stenl 4y ago

John PA Ioannidis, one of the authors of that paper (which is from 2018 btw) has published an average of 60 papers per year for the last decade, and more than 1100 in total (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Ioannidis+JPA&filter=datesearch.y_10 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Ioannidis+JPA&filter=d...). I’m pretty sure he doesn’t even have time to read most of his own papers.

rockostrich 4y ago
It looks like he's second to last or last author on most of those papers which typically means he's the advisor for the graduate student/post-doc that's actually doing the work. It's still an insane number of papers to be a part of but considering Ioannidis is director of the Prevention Research Center and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford it's not really that insane.
- borroka 4y ago
  There are also incentives for others to include him as a co-author despite the fact that, presumably, he has come nowhere near the minimum work that would be expected to allow him to be included as such. The question "Did you publish a paper with [famous scientist/researcher]" is not too different from the question "Did you go to dinner with [famous actress/entertainer/]" in other contexts. The give some clout, recognition, some minor envy from others.
- __seka__ 4y ago
  > Prevention Research Center and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford Aren't those roles supposed to hold a significant amount of responsibility and therefore require a certain level of commitment? A day has only 24 hours. How much time do you think someone in such a position can dedicate to reviewing papers?
323 4y ago
It takes a scammer to spot a scammer. If you know that there is wide spread fraud in science, and you know how it's done, why not profit and publish a paper on it?
londons_explore 4y ago
A paper is only a few pages long usually. A read of a paper takes perhaps half an hour. And in that time, you might even be able to check some references, make a few edits, or drop an email to someone to gather some more results for a figure or two. Doing this once a week seems very reasonable.
- higeorge13 4y ago
  Proof reading and correcting typos shouldn’t be considered authoring, but it is what it is.
- dahinds 4y ago
  A close reading of a scientific paper of any consequence does not take half an hour. These days a published paper may typically be only a few pages but it isn't at all uncommon for the paper to be accompanied by 20-50 pages of supplementary text. When I'm asked to review a paper it takes me the better part of a day, at least. If I were a senior author on that paper that would be the bare minimum that I'd consider an acceptable commitment of effort.
  - tokinonagare 4y ago
    It really depends on the field. @londons_explore is right that a lot of papers in some fields can be read in half an hour, or an hour, and sent back with feedback.
NelsonMinar 4y ago
"What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?" (about his publications during the Covid epidemic.) https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  I think the preamble of the article you linked is important for the consideration of others in opening the link: "John Ioannidis is one of the most published and influential scientists in the world, someone whose skewering of bad medical research we at SBM have frequently lauded over the years. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, Prof. Ioannidis has been publishing dubious studies that minimize the dangers of the coronavirus, shown up in the media to decry “lockdowns,” and, most recently, “punched down”, attacking a graduate student for having criticized him. What happened? Did Prof. Ioannidis change, or was he always like this and I just didn’t see it? Either way, he’s a cautionary tale of how even science watchdogs can fall prey to hubris." Great find.
  - scifibestfi 4y ago
    That's a reverse dunk, given that he was proven correct.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      If he had stated that SARS-CoV-2 would eventually mutate into something as serious as a cold or a flu he would have been correct. This is not what he stated.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  Nothing happened to Ioannidis. He did his job as a scientist and said what he thought was right, even when everybody disagreed with him. So he was wrong? So what? To be a scientist means to blunder a lot. In fact, to be a scientist means to (be willing to) blunder much, much more than everybody else because that is the only way to learn. Science, ultimately, only gives you the tools to know when you're wrong.

by stenl 4y ago

rockostrich 4y ago

It looks like he's second to last or last author on most of those papers which typically means he's the advisor for the graduate student/post-doc that's actually doing the work. It's still an insane number of papers to be a part of but considering Ioannidis is director of the Prevention Research Center and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford it's not really that insane.

borroka 4y ago
There are also incentives for others to include him as a co-author despite the fact that, presumably, he has come nowhere near the minimum work that would be expected to allow him to be included as such. The question "Did you publish a paper with [famous scientist/researcher]" is not too different from the question "Did you go to dinner with [famous actress/entertainer/]" in other contexts. The give some clout, recognition, some minor envy from others.
__seka__ 4y ago
> Prevention Research Center and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford Aren't those roles supposed to hold a significant amount of responsibility and therefore require a certain level of commitment? A day has only 24 hours. How much time do you think someone in such a position can dedicate to reviewing papers?

323 4y ago

It takes a scammer to spot a scammer. If you know that there is wide spread fraud in science, and you know how it's done, why not profit and publish a paper on it?

londons_explore 4y ago

A paper is only a few pages long usually. A read of a paper takes perhaps half an hour. And in that time, you might even be able to check some references, make a few edits, or drop an email to someone to gather some more results for a figure or two. Doing this once a week seems very reasonable.

higeorge13 4y ago
Proof reading and correcting typos shouldn’t be considered authoring, but it is what it is.
dahinds 4y ago
A close reading of a scientific paper of any consequence does not take half an hour. These days a published paper may typically be only a few pages but it isn't at all uncommon for the paper to be accompanied by 20-50 pages of supplementary text. When I'm asked to review a paper it takes me the better part of a day, at least. If I were a senior author on that paper that would be the bare minimum that I'd consider an acceptable commitment of effort.
- tokinonagare 4y ago
  It really depends on the field. @londons_explore is right that a lot of papers in some fields can be read in half an hour, or an hour, and sent back with feedback.

NelsonMinar 4y ago

"What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?" (about his publications during the Covid epidemic.) https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
I think the preamble of the article you linked is important for the consideration of others in opening the link: "John Ioannidis is one of the most published and influential scientists in the world, someone whose skewering of bad medical research we at SBM have frequently lauded over the years. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, Prof. Ioannidis has been publishing dubious studies that minimize the dangers of the coronavirus, shown up in the media to decry “lockdowns,” and, most recently, “punched down”, attacking a graduate student for having criticized him. What happened? Did Prof. Ioannidis change, or was he always like this and I just didn’t see it? Either way, he’s a cautionary tale of how even science watchdogs can fall prey to hubris." Great find.
- scifibestfi 4y ago
  That's a reverse dunk, given that he was proven correct.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    If he had stated that SARS-CoV-2 would eventually mutate into something as serious as a cold or a flu he would have been correct. This is not what he stated.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
Nothing happened to Ioannidis. He did his job as a scientist and said what he thought was right, even when everybody disagreed with him. So he was wrong? So what? To be a scientist means to blunder a lot. In fact, to be a scientist means to (be willing to) blunder much, much more than everybody else because that is the only way to learn. Science, ultimately, only gives you the tools to know when you're wrong.