Dear Dr Noori

I agree with you. Depend on the researching skills, writing and representing skill and how many projects you involve and even how much you love and like the writting, for example now I take many times for writting the papers , more than usual as I really involve in green projects and I do it by all my energy and Love!

Best regards

Mere addition of number of articles per year do not rate the merit of a researcher/ scientist. Rather the quality of publication accounts a lot. One has to ensure that how one's research or published work helps to the mankind. How many of  readers are really benefited with such published papers. Hence quality of publication rather mere quantity of papers account significantly to rate a scientist.

Dear Fathi M Sherif, 

Thanks a lot for this question.Thanks so much for all colleagues who contribute and will contribute in the discussion. The number of papers, published by a researcher, depends on several parameters such as: the quality of paper, the journal in which we publish, the topic of the research and so on.

I believe that the evaluation of research based on the number of published papers is not a good criterion.

With mt best wishes.

Adel OUESLATI 

The number of papers by a scientist in a year depends on the quality of the papers/journals,  research environment and the research members as well. However, it can be said, in general, that a scientist can publish 2 research papers in average.

This is an interesting question and I would say two papers a year.  However, I do not think that this number will get you promoted. I would say six papers a year is close to the figure that will get you promoted.

Dear Fathi M Sherif,

Thanks for this interesting question.

According to my opinion, in this way, quality is more important than quantity!

Sometimes, we neglect our scientific targets and focus our energy just on more publication! it can be the first point of basic deflection in knowledge road!

I believe that the number of articles published by a researcher is not a guarantee of quality, a criterion can be the contribution of their findings to humanity.

I think it depends on the quality of the papers & journals.

To be sure, a paper published in a journal like Science is worth 10 times or more than a paper published in an average journal.  The quality of the journal is a big factor in measuring the merit of a scientist.

It is not about the average number of papers to be published annually that matters. Rather, it is the emergent problems confronted by the researcher's community and the extent of the solutions s/he gets via the research activities that determine how many papers to be published in a year. Some imminent problems confronting associations and institutions or societies require immediate attention and a research for that matter. This does not in any way that researchers in such contexts must demean the rigor that is demanded of a quality research. I think we must forget about numbers of papers, think of the number of problems that need redress in a year and the speed with which the researcher can produce quality results for such problems.

Dickson Adom

In my view publication is meant for adding new information in already available literature. It is very hard to quantify flow of idea in once mind. It is disarable 2_3 publication in year is sufficient

In my opinion, it totally depends upon the flow of new thoughts. But We should look about quality publications rather than quantity. I think, if quality matters then one high impact publication will be good for a researcher.

It is good subject

Quality articles are necessary

Many variables are related to the question like:-

1- Specialty

2-Journal quality

3-The reputation of the scientist

In my opinion, 1 article (min.) published in a peer reviewed ( Thomson Reuters) journal with an impact factor (4) will suffice.

Journal with impact factor is very important

The average number of publications per scientist per year varies from country to country and scientific discipline. There is no ideal number.

Some scientists by pressure of productivity demanded in some Institution of Higher Education, usually publish every quarter, quarter, semester or semester, depending on the Institution; Or the necessary credits to appear in some "International Ranking", or necessary points to qualify as national researcher of your country.

The truth is that it is difficult to carry out and publish one or two original or innovative researches per year.

regards

Jose Luis

El promedio de publicaciones por científico/año, varía de país en país y de disciplina científica. No hay un número ideal. 

Algunos científicos por presión de productividad exigida en alguna Institución de Educación Superior, suelen publicar cada bimestre, trimestre, cuatrimestre o semestre, dependiendo de la Institución; o los créditos necesarios para figurar en algún "Ranking Internacional", o puntos necesarios para calificar como investigador nacional de su país.

Lo cierto es que difícilmente se puede realizar y publicar una o dos investigaciones originales o innovadoras al año.

Saludos

José Luis

I think to have 1 or 2 high publications in Journal of high IF, yearly is an excellent achievement

Overall, publications for a good Scientist don't concern about his ranking. Because a good Scientist may give only his views and start new ideas about something new through the discussions in the seminars, workshops, conferences and related communities within the short period of time.

It is not a question of quantity but of quality

The important thing is to have results from our scientific work.

It is correct that quality matters and not the number. The work must advance the scientific knowledge. In some cases, the knowledge is not advanced, but, important product is developed. This also add to the knowledge in different domains, which often becomes very important. This data is also publishable in applied journal. Sometimes, this get huge number of citations. Thus, the number of articles per year is not very important.

Excellent paper may result 1 or 2 in a year. Very good may be 4 and good/average may come more.Most important is the proper identification of problem and get convinced with the results, treatment of data and presentation for readers to understand and get interested.

It depends on the type of the field subjects. Some papers could done experimentally and do not require for long time comparing with the research work related to ecological l work. which requires no less than one year. 

It depends of many factors, but undoubtedly from the quantity  you can get the excellence and also the inspiration 

It depends in researching skills, wide knowledge, writing  and representing skills 

Dear Dr Noori

I agree with you. Depend on the researching skills, writing and representing skill and how many projects you involve and even how much you love and like the writting, for example now I take many times for writting the papers , more than usual as I really involve in green projects and I do it by all my energy and Love!

Best regards

Dear Parisa Ziarati

Thanks for your feed back. it is great

Regards

One should concern about the quality not the quantity. It is good enough if a researcher publish one article per year.

I agree with Anuradha Iddagoda. Very good answer dear. 

3 to 4 relevant paper.

To get a postdoctoral position how many papers should a student have ?

It is very important to have scientific data that could use practically by the community 

I fully agree with Dr. Odiel Estrada opinion about this subject. The most important thing is to obtain new and clear results with a quick translation into the real practice

One or tow perfect research per year 

It is good to publish in the well known journal with impact factor

Thanks for all contributors for my question, let's forget the quality for this question. To be a good scientist (YOU NEED TO PRODUCE DATA and PUBLISHED). Thus, my question could be one very good article is enough for a scientist per year or has to produce and work more harder to have more than three per year.

While I'm not a scientist, as a philosopher and scholar of religion I can say that an average of two articles per year in quality academic journals is quite good. That's always my goal.

Thanks Kirk, I do agree with you very much. With my experience, to publish a good article with profound contribution as first or second author, 2 to 3 article are very acceptable.

again, quality article is necessary and important for the scientist profile. 

I do agree with you Noori but still you need a number of articles to be published in order to keep your job and to have funds.

Yes, Dr. Sherif , we need more that article . quality article required . thanks

Thanks Dr., you agree with me in case of applying for funds, published articles are need to gain funds

two  quality articles should be published in a good journal with impact factor

1. The publications are often duplicated (in national journals at first and then in international (as a rule in English) ones .

2. A number and quality of papers strongly depends on qualification and scientific potential of members of reseach team and their leader as well as a number of these researchers. So, we all know the examples of great amount of qualitative paper per year in case of group authorship.

Quality publication is very important

Practical and economical publications which useful to the society and could be used practically in the field are important

Quality is much more important than quantity....

Quality Journal is very important

I agree with Noori, however, both quality of research and quality of journal is very important but how many articles should be produced by scientist in a year.

Dear Fathi M Sherif ,

Yes , I also agree with you. Regards

I don't agree that quality of paper is more important than numbers. Meaning that one good quality paper per year is enough for researchers to be updated. For me, number of at least 5 publication per year, as well as solving problems is my goal

Still you need to produce new meaningful data and not to reproduce data. Thus, the quality of paper and journal is representing by novel data

I think this depends on the type of paper one wants to publish and the journal type. Publishing in high impact journals is not something so easy, so counting the number per year should be secondary, rather, the quality of the paper should be the focus. Although, scientist and scholars publish in both the regulars and the high impact factor ones.

I think quality is the issue not the quantity, so publishing 1 or 2 papers in Q1 journal with impact factor more than 3 is excellent work.

I totally agree with Mohamed that 2 to 3 articles published a year is good to a scientist but with major contribution as a first author

To publish between 3-6 papers per year is a very good objective

Thanks Dear Luis, some times 6 papers as a main author (major contribution) is a little hard work and a lucky author

I believe that

1- It is the quality matter, a paper published in a peer reviewed specialized journal is worth more than a paper published in a general national journal.

2- The important is to have results from our scientific paper and to add new information or representing a novel data in already available literature.

3- It depends on the type of the field subjects and specialty, I agree with Dr. Noori, papers done experimentally do not require for long time, I am Pediatrician/Metabolist, studies with patients having rare diseases (incidence 1:100.000), to produce patients require years even with hard working.

4- Also it is varies from country to country in diagnostic and laboratories facilities, therapeutic resources and in-country collaboration.

So, I agree (in part of) with Dr. Fathi we should focus on scientific targets and not on the number of published papers, one good article obtain new helping results, useful to the society or be one of unique country world diseases reference values with number of citations is enough, because it is worth, comparing with numbers of published researches with topics of similar previously published designs. I agree,the number of papers published annually is not a guarantee of quality.

Thanks Hana, most of the comments are very positive and answered the question. I can add that experience of the author is a major factor since written an article and accepted is not an easy work. As well as the cost of the journal to publish your manuscript plays a role in choosing the quality of journal, some high quality journal cost too much money to publish.

Sometimes you have a good data but you can present and write in acceptable way. Thus, experience in publishing and writing is a major factor in quality and number published in a year.

10-15 is a good number

Some times the preparing, editing and publication stages may be very difficult. The reasons: very high level of requirements to manuscript from the side of editorial board or reviewers as well as ability of author to make the corrections. Other words, there are "hard" and "light" papers, "hard" and "light" journals. As a result, one "hard" paper has a large labour-output ratio which is equal to a few "light" ones...

Thanks, Hakan but is it possible to publish 10-15 as a main author?

From 2-5 high quality research is satisfactory

Thanks Abdallah, and totally agree with you, if the researcher is lucky

yes, quality papers are essential

Dear Sherif,

As a main author it is possible. Your connections are important. If you are a mentor for a number of researchers you can do that.

Thanks Hakan, what is main author, usually, how much contribution in the work is more important than sequence of coauthoring.

Anyone knows that productivity of scientist corresponds to a sinusoidal-like law: of course, you can publish ten qualitative papers this year, but then the 'slack' is following...And we should be take into account minimal time of journal publication cycle (often year or more).

So, in statistics sence one-year period is seemed too short to be indicative for researcher activity characterization. To my opinion, three-year period is optimal and mean value of publicaion quantity per year you can estimate

Thanks, Serge, then what's the average for the three years for a scientist to called a good researcher.

Dear Fathi, not less 10 articles including 2-3 important ones, having essentially novelty and great value for specific scientific topic, per three year is seemed enough for recognition prestigious status "good researcher".

Solving problem research work is very important

Dear Noori, we all agree that our main interest in research is to solve and to make problems more clear. However, some times, doing research but few results or negative findings make a publication of the data is hard and takes longer time.

I meant mentor (main author).

Following to answers of collegues in course of this actual discussion, let me add that only one or two best publications may give outstanding and remarkable input in knowledge and your reputation.

Number of papers depends on subject of research, researching capability, and writing skill. At the same time quality of publication is also very important.

To Hakan Demirci:

Dear Prof. Demirci:

I agree that 10-15 - are good numbers - as such..

But personally I like 14

Best Regards,

Leonid

My experience shows that for active experimenter (as experiment require sometimes lot of time, also trials and errors) the number of publications per year cannot exceed 10. For my case this amount should be divided for 2 or 3. Very good theorist, who are engaged only in science, can do up to 20 publications a year, not more. But such work is at the limit of intellectual and physical capabilities. However, some big bosses make over 100 masterpieces per year. I even do not read so fast, сonsidering that there is another matters (reports and plans, consultations etc...).

Thanks all for the valuable comments and discussion. However, for a good researcher (but may I say scientist), there is a variation among topics and research areas, some topics as mentioned above needs time to run experiment and so research does not (easy to collect data and methods do not take time). However, I say that there are many points to be considered for publication (as research area, quality , team (coauthors), journal).

Thus, 3 to 5 papers are very acceptable number in this case.