‘The great publication race’ vs ‘abandon paper counting’: Benchmarking ECR publication and co-authorship rates over past 50 years to inform research evaluation
Background: Publication and co-authorship rates have been increasing over decades. In response, calls are being made to restrict the number of publications included in research evaluations. Yet there is little evidence to guide publication expectations and inform research evaluation for early career researchers (ECRs). Methods: Here we examine the early career publication and co-authorship records between 1970 and 2019 of >140,000 authors of 2.8 million publications, to identify how publication and co-authorship rates have changed over the last 50 years. This examination is conducted in order to develop benchmarks of median publication rates for sensibly evaluating ECR research productivity, and to explore success in meeting these benchmarks with different co-authorship strategies using regression models. Results: Publication rates of multidisciplinary ECRs publishing in Nature, Science and PNAS have increased by 46% over the last 50 years and that publications rates in a set of disciplinary journals have increased by 105%. Co-authorship rates have increased even more, particularly for the multidisciplinary sample which now has 572% more co-authors per publication. Benchmarks based on median publication rates for all authors increased from one publication per year at the start of a career, to four publications per year after 10 years of publishing, and one first-author publication across all years. The probability of meeting these benchmarks increases when authors publish with different co-authors, and first authorship rates decrease for ECRs with many co-authors per publication. Conclusion: This evidence could be used to inform sensible publishing expectations for ECRs and the institutions they work for, and to inform calls to limit the number of publications produced by researchers and those used in research evaluations.
