Didier Raoult currently has 3253 Scopus-indexed publications and on his Wikipedia page one can read the following: "Raoult's extremely high publication rate results from his "attaching his name to nearly every paper that comes out of his institute",[31] a practice that has been called "grossly unethical" by Steven Salzberg" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult
The reality is that publishers do not retract papers solely based on exceedingly high prolificacy, not even if authors have 7 (seven) papers per week, every week of a year. This reluctance may stem from the publishers' belief in the existence of scientists possessing extraordinary capabilities or superpowers.
Let's consider the scenario where a scientist is discovered to have authored 14 papers every week throughout an entire year. What actions will the publishers take? Will they retract the papers, perhaps by removing the scientist's name, or will they persist in adopting an ostrich-like approach, burying their heads in the sand? Moreover, can we unequivocally designate 14 papers per week as the threshold for scientific misconduct?
Regrettably, Raoult is not the sole perpetrator of "grossly unethical" authorship practices. It's essential to remember that in 2018, a Full Professor at Stanford University asserted in Nature that approximately 10,000 super-scientists were publishing an average of one paper every day of the week. Fortunately, they take a break on Saturday and Sunday; otherwise, the count of their publications would be even higher.
Hence, publishers opt to adopt an ostrich-like approach rather than retracting papers from a substantial group engaged in widespread false authorship. In matters of publishing misconduct, publishers often adhere to Realpolitik principles, prioritizing business interests over scientific integrity. To them, the significance of scientific integrity is conditional, safeguarded only when it does not jeopardize the colossal profits of the publishing industry. Ultimately, the core focus of the publishing business transcends integrity and even Science itself; it revolves around generating substantial profits, reaching into the billions.
The repercussions of the aforementioned Reapolitik publishing strategy are manifold. Firstly, if Full Professors and Lab Directors can exploit this approach, it sets a precedent for junior researchers to emulate, harboring dreams of accumulating numerous publications themselves one day. Secondly, if this becomes the norm in Western countries, third-world nations may be inclined to replicate these "successful" practices, cultivating their own super-scientists. Consequently, if an African super-scientist were to emerge with 10,000 or 20,000 publications at the summit of the publishing rankings, there would be little ground for criticism. Moreover, in an era where Science faces challenges from alternative facts and fake news, this "grossly unethical" authorship behavior undermines scientific authority, inadvertently aiding those who oppose Science.
