Dear Ali,  

Quality cannot be compromised with quantity. If you have many MSS worth publishing, you can publish them all in a year. Otherwise refrain from publishing even a single paper.

With best wishes,

Subir.

I don't think that the certain determined quantity of papers should be mandatory for the researcher to be published per year... Only free choice how many papers would you wish to publish can guarantee reliable data to be published.

This is dependent on the relative contribution of authors on the paper. Some authors published more than twenty papers per year, mostly as coauthors rather than the first or corresponding author. I suspect whether he/she really understand the key point of the paper, especially in China.

I suggest, in my opinion, 4 to 6 papers per year are sufficient for a researcher (as the first or corresponding author). This means 2 or 3 months were spend on writing a paper contributed significantly by the author.

Dear Ali,  

Quality cannot be compromised with quantity. If you have many MSS worth publishing, you can publish them all in a year. Otherwise refrain from publishing even a single paper.

With best wishes,

Subir.

I agree with Dr. Subir sirs opinion

I have made a quick literature review and found papers dealing with the matter.

Based on real facts and constraints, a researcher publication rate cannot exceed 1.6 in most cases. Those who publish more papers are really exceptional.

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.02.003

One can write as many as worth publishing papers that depending upon his writing skill/ability, scope, and time available. overwriting should not jeopardize the flow of your ongoing research.

@Ali: I guess something smart is meant in your question. Perhaps to think: How many scientific papers can a researcher publish per year?!

It completely depends on the researcher's aptitude. I feel there is no boundary line for this. Sometimes it may be only one, in experimental works, or the number may rise up to anywhere once a periodic cycle is formulated... means.. one paper is published, another in galley proof, yet another in press, in review, in second review and communicated stage. Experience of the researcher matters, how he/she formulates this cycle. Active researchers never let their data become outdated.. That's my opinion.

The publication of  Papers should be in free or unpaid journals in the respective area that give publication to quality papers otherwise if we want merely  to publish papers then there are numerous paid journals that publish paper with some fees.

nowadays, publishing has become a real business. Publishers are changing towards the language of science. Authors are also working hard for the sake of good science... But the question remains debatable. To satisfy his own desire, the author has to run experimental work, interpret results and perhaps get his final mamuscript published every semester.

I think it will be fine if you have continuous publications every year.

Maybe somebody published only several papers in his/her whole life, but the following collegues will positively cite them when they start the similar research, it also makes great sense. What I mean 'continuously publish paper every year' just imply one kind of attitude, not absolutely. Thanks for any oppinon to remind me about the academic life.

Quality, not simply quantity. In that sense, I agree with Michael's comment. Splitting up research results for maximum number of publications is, in my opinion, more a sign of ambition than professionalism. If one has only one truly original publication during one's professional lifetime, that is fine; if one has many such exceptional publications, it is OK to share them too. The emphasis should always be on quality, even if one's organization encourages quantity vs. quality for increased publicity for the organization, or for quicker advancement of the individual.