There are several answers to this question, some positive and some negative.

I'll start with the positive:

1. Diligence and dedication - people who publish prolifically are very enthusiastic about their work and devoted to it, and thus work very hard to get their work published.

2. Experience - writing comes with experience. People who publish a lot are very experienced.

3. Large research teams - publishing rapidly often correlates with a large team working together. The more collaborations one has, the more papers one can publish. Basically, other people are contributing and doing much of the work.

4. Large data sets - having a large data set from which to draw many studies is key to prolific publications.

5. Originality - people with original ideas get more things done and published.

6. Working on empirical and conceptual work simultaeously - publishing empirical work as well as reviews or conceptual/theoretical works may increase the amount of publications.

Now the negative:

1. Poor quality - publishing poor studies that lack rigor may lead to more papers, but those are not as good (believe it or not, the scientific milieu can consume and use a lot of poor research).

2. Plagiarism - people steel other people's work and publish it.

3. Connections – some people are well connected, and get their work published without the proper merit.

4. Milking the data - breaking studies down to (too) many little studies may allow for more publications.

On a positive note, I truly think that prolific researchers are typically associated with the positive manners of publishing rather than the negative. Nevertheless, there are some who combine aspects of both.

Good luck.

Hi Diana,

A good question - and I am sure that there are many possible answers. I would argue that the main reasons are complex; yet predictable.

For instance, if you have a quality, original product that fits to the scope of a journal - that will help a lot. Add to that the 'learning the dance' of established journals will assist i.e is your manuscript structured to house-style, is it within the scope of the journal, is it (as often has to be the case) written in good, grammatical English (and I am English) etc.

Another aspect of your question is publishing 'a lot quickly'. Obviously, you have to have the source, original material - but it's often a case of getting your work 'out their' quickly i.e. post-doctoral studies. If you have a lot go good source, original material - then get it 'out there' as quickly as you can

Without seeing quality of journal, an author published a lot quickly. If we see quality, and other qualities it is not possible.

Diana, to add to Dean's excellent reply-do not become obsessed with impact factor, research the editorial board of your selected journal, consider editorials, commentaries etc-co-author to broaden your sources and submit, submit, submit!

There are several answers to this question, some positive and some negative.

I'll start with the positive:

1. Diligence and dedication - people who publish prolifically are very enthusiastic about their work and devoted to it, and thus work very hard to get their work published.

2. Experience - writing comes with experience. People who publish a lot are very experienced.

3. Large research teams - publishing rapidly often correlates with a large team working together. The more collaborations one has, the more papers one can publish. Basically, other people are contributing and doing much of the work.

4. Large data sets - having a large data set from which to draw many studies is key to prolific publications.

5. Originality - people with original ideas get more things done and published.

6. Working on empirical and conceptual work simultaeously - publishing empirical work as well as reviews or conceptual/theoretical works may increase the amount of publications.

Now the negative:

1. Poor quality - publishing poor studies that lack rigor may lead to more papers, but those are not as good (believe it or not, the scientific milieu can consume and use a lot of poor research).

2. Plagiarism - people steel other people's work and publish it.

3. Connections – some people are well connected, and get their work published without the proper merit.

4. Milking the data - breaking studies down to (too) many little studies may allow for more publications.

On a positive note, I truly think that prolific researchers are typically associated with the positive manners of publishing rather than the negative. Nevertheless, there are some who combine aspects of both.

Good luck.

I have found several things useful in getting published:

1) Be familiar with journals to publish through - Cabell's Database is something I requested my university add (they did, thankfully). It is loaded with information about acceptance rates, impact factors, and other metrics that are important for my path towards P&T

2) Write daily - I have several ongoing projects but have dedicated time each morning (from 9-10) that will be for writing. No emails, no meetings, just writing.

3) Collaborate with others - I have been able to enhance ideas and come up with additional venues to write for simply by bouncing my ideas off others. Often, they might see something you had not thought of and it gives a new twist to something you already know a great deal about making for an appropriate and easier to write additional piece

Hi,

I think that the "secret" of quick publishing is the enhanced scientific collaboration in recent years. If researchers collaborate, their work is becoming easier and faster, and they are able to come up with new original ideas more frequently than when working as single authors.

Team work

Dear Diana, there is only one way to start, and that is just start it. What you feel now is the mental equivalent of inertia (unless you are stalled by perfectionism). Give it a push, and soon you will be asking here how to stop yourself from prolifically publishing :)

All the best.

Thank you Rad. I needed that today :).