AbstractThe integrity of research is increasingly under scrutiny, as unethical practices challenge the credibility of global academic systems. The Highly Cited Researchers (HCR) list by Clarivate recognizes individuals whose work ranks in the top 1% of citations, serving as a prestigious benchmark for scientific excellence. However, the intense pursuit of HCR status has exposed systemic issues, including excessive self-citations, citation rings, and affiliation games. These behaviors compromise the academic value of the HCR designation, highlighting a need for reform. This article explores the implications of research misconduct among HCRs, emphasizing how these issues affect the global research landscape. Countries like Saudi Arabia and China have leveraged HCR recruitment for academic rankings, while some researchers and institutions employ unethical strategies to secure HCR recognition. Recent investigations into the publishing ecosystem revealed concerning practices such as "Edit-for-Pal," hyper-authorship, and manipulation of peer-review processes, resulting in the suspension of journals and retraction of numerous papers. Key cases of misconduct include hyperprolific publishing networks and affiliation manipulation. Researchers such as Yong Sik Ok, Daniel C.W. Tsang, Joerg Rinklebe, Kadambot H.M. Siddique, Nanthi Bolan, and Pau Loke Show have faced scrutiny for their roles in citation networks and questionable editorial practices. Meanwhile, institutions like King Saud University have been criticized for fostering unethical affiliations to boost rankings. The study also highlights severe individual cases, such as Ashok Pandey's retractions during his tenure as editor-in-chief of Bioresource Technology and Rafael Luque's suspension for unauthorized affiliations. STOTEN editors Damia Barcelo, Daniel C.W. Tsang, Deyi Hou, and Huu Hao Ngo have faced scrutiny for frequently handling manuscripts authored by their close collaborators while simultaneously being co-authors on other papers. The findings underscore the urgent need for robust oversight, transparency, and ethical reforms in research evaluation systems.    IntroductionThe integrity of research is increasingly under threat, presenting new challenges for the global academic community.  The Highly Cited Researchers (HCR) list by Clarivate is one of the most prestigious rankings in academia, highlighting individuals whose publications are among the top 1% most cited in their respective fields. For many researchers and institutions, being named on this list is a badge of honor. However, this recognition has fueled a relentless hunt and obsession, leading to unethical and concerning behaviors in the academic world.HCR status has become a powerful symbol of excellence, often used by universities and governments as a metric to assess the impact and quality of their research programs. For individuals, it can boost career prospects, increase funding opportunities, and enhance reputation. For institutions, hosting HCRs strengthens their global rankings and visibility.Countries like China and Saudi Arabia have strategically invested in recruiting HCRs, offering lucrative incentives to top researchers in exchange for listing their affiliation. This raises the institutions' profiles and boosts national standings in global academic rankings, such as the QS World University Rankings or the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU).While the pursuit of excellence is admirable, the intense focus on HCR status has led to unintended consequences. Researchers often feel pressured to produce high-impact publications at an unsustainable pace, prioritizing citation metrics over genuine scientific exploration. To secure HCR status, some individuals and institutions engage in questionable practices, such as Excessive Self Citations, operating Citation Rings where groups of researchers agree to cite each other's work. Some resort to Affiliation Games, where institutions recruit HCRs solely to list them as affiliates, even if their actual contributions to the institution are minimal.  The obsession with citations often overlooks other vital aspects of scientific contribution, such as mentoring students, community engagement, and contributions to applied or local research that may not garner significant citations but are invaluable to society. The Broader ImplicationsThis metric-driven culture risks creating an environment where the pursuit of numbers outweighs the pursuit of science. Rapid technological advances and shifts in the publishing landscape require continuous refinement of evaluation systems, including those used for the annual HCR program. In recent years, manipulation tactics employed by some researchers and institutions have been on the rise. These manipulations became more sophisticated, including hyper-publishing, peer review manipulation via collaborating with editors,  and scientific misconduct: plagiarism, data fabrication, and image manipulation.  In October 2024, Clarivate, placed the journal Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN) on hold, suspending its indexing pending a re-evaluation. This decision was prompted by concerns regarding the quality of content published in the journal. Other journals on hold include Chemosphere, eLife, Heliyon, Cureus. In June 2024, Clarivate, withheld Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR)'s Impact Factor due to concerns over citation manipulation.  Further investigations revealed that ESPR had published a substantial number of articles with questionable scientific integrity. By August 2024, the journal had retracted nearly 140 articles, with ongoing evaluations of additional publications. These retractions were primarily due to issues such as suspicious citations, the use of tortured phrases, and undisclosed utilisation of artificial intelligence in the manuscripts. Global ImplicationsSeveral key measures are employed to maintain the credibility of the HCR selection process. These include:Misconduct Exclusions: Individuals found guilty of scientific misconduct by their institutions, publishers, or funding bodies are disqualified from selection.Hyper-authorship: Papers authored by individuals producing an extraordinarily high volume of publications—sometimes several papers per week over extended periods—raise questions about meaningful contributions. Such patterns deviate from conventional norms of authorship and academic rigor.Excessive Self-Citation: Researchers with highly cited papers showing disproportionate self-citation levels are flagged. In particular, instances where recent publications of limited incremental value are accompanied by excessive self-citation are subjected to closer evaluation.Collaborative Citation Patterns: Unusual reliance on coauthor citations, where more than half of a researcher’s citations come from collaborators, is scrutinized. Such patterns suggest a narrow, localized influence rather than the broad, community-wide recognition expected of HCRs.Crackdown listThe crackdown on manipulation has had notable effects worldwide. For instance, Saudi Arabian institutions faced scrutiny for recruiting top researchers to list them as primary affiliates, a practice that artificially boosted their positions in global university rankings.  The tightening of HCR has led to significant changes. According to Clarivate in 2024, over 2,000 candidates were excluded from consideration due to concerns identified during the evaluation—up from 500 in 2022 to over 1,000 in 2023. These escalating numbers underscore the scale of integrity challenges in the research landscape. Transparency of the names removed from the list promotes fairness, ensuring that honest researchers and institutions are not unjustly scrutinized due to ambiguity or suspicion surrounding the list.This article provides analysis of some individuals who were removed from the Clarivate HCR list. Their names were matched with PubPeer records.ResultsBased on careful investigation of HCR list and PubPeer records, Table 1 provides some key personnel removed from HCR list from 2022. The list particularly highlights the tightly knit biochar ring, which was exposed in previous publications (Abduh 2023, 2024). Yong Sik Ok (Korea University, South Korea) is a standout figure who was given 3 HCR categories in 2022 in biology, environment, and engineering. Ok boasts over 90 highly cited papers, but all three titles were removed by Clarivate in 2023. Ok has a substantial Pubpeer record, amounting to 262. Ok formed a network with key players Daniel CW Tsang, Jorg Rinklebe (Wuppertal), Hailong Wang, Nanthi Bolan, Deyi Hou. In South Korea, he is the head of network with Ki-Hyun Kim, Hocheol Song, and Eilhann Kwon from Hanyang University, Jechan Lee (Sungkyunkwan University  SKKU), Sang Soo Lee (Yonsei University). Ok is tightly linked with Baoshan Xing (University of Massachusetts Amherst), Amit Bhatnagar (Lappeenranta University of Technology),  and Ajit Sarmah (University of Auckland), Nabeel Khan Niazi (University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan), Meththika Vithanage (University of Southern Queensland).Joerg Rinklebe (University of Wuppertal, Germany) has a massive 528 Pubpeer records,known as a hyperprolific authors with over 100 papers a year, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hazardous Materials and Environmental Pollution. Rinklebe’s close collaborators are Sabry M. Shaheen (King Abdulaziz University), along with Yong Sik Ok and his wide network. Daniel C. W. Tsang (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) is a hyperprolific author, editor, and reviewer. He publishes over 100 papers a year, with over 90 highly cited papers, edited more than 40 journal special editions, and sat in numerous editorial boards including STOTEN. Tsang is the current Editor-in-chief of npj Materials Sustainability. He also edits for Cement and Concrete Composites, Journal of Environmental Management, Waste Disposal and Sustainable Energy, Carbon Research, Biochar, Carbon Capture Science & Technology, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Bioresource Technology, Environmental Pollution, Advanced Sustainable Systems, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, Journal of Soils and Sediments, Environmental Geochemistry and Health. Tsang also contributed editing to Heliyon, Chemosphere, Science of the Total Environment, all of them are put on hold by Clarivate. Tsang managed to accumulate a substantial amount of Pubpeer records of 228. His tenure at STOTEN is marked by frequent editing of his close coauthors: Deyi Hou, Yong Sik Ok and others. Investigations have identified 64 instances by the end of September 2024 where  Tsang engaged in "Edit-for-Pal" practices.  This term refers to an editor handling manuscripts authored by their frequent co-authors or colleagues from the same institution, potentially compromising the impartiality of the peer-review process (5GH).Iris K. M. Yu (Hong Kong Polytechnic University), Yuqing Sun (Sun Yat Sen University), both trained by Daniel C.W. Tsang managed to earn HCR in 2023, only to be remove din 2024 for their involvement in the network of citations led by Tsang.Deyi Hou and David O’ Connor from Tsinghua University are part of the Biochar Ring. Deyi Hou is also the editor of STOTEN, frequently editing for Daniel Tsang. Deyi Hou and David O’Connor are also editors of Soil Use and Management. Deyi Hou, in an editorial, cited 37 papers of Soil Use and Management to boost its impact factor (Hou, 2023). The group is involved in frequent edit-for-pal unethical relationships. For example, between 19 May 2022 and 16 January 2024 Deyi Hou acted as an editor of STOTEN for 5 papers authored by Jörg Rinklebe while at the same time they co-authored multiple papers together (PubPeer). In another case, Deyi Hou served as an editor for Nanthi S Bolan (Ying et al. 2024, Received 9 August 2023), but  actually published papers together at the same time (Le et al., 2023, Received 2 July 2023). To make matters even worse, the paper authored by Bolan and Hou was edited by Daniel CW Tsang, who also published with both authors at the same time.The editors of STOTEN who are also removed from HCR list are Damia Barcelo (King Saud University), alsong with  Huu Hao Ngo (University of Technology Sydney). Between 2016 and 2022, Barceló declared his primary affiliation as King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, despite his actual position being at ICRA. Such actions are part of a broader issue where researchers falsely claim affiliations with certain institutions to enhance university rankings and personal recognition. In Barceló's case, this misrepresentation led to his exclusion from Clarivate's 2023 list of Highly Cited Researchers (EL PAIS). Huu Hao Ngo is also engaged in frequent "Edit-for-Pal" practices for STOTEN (5GH).From Australia, Kadambot H. M. Siddique (University of Western Australia) is a hyperprolific authos, writing over 130 papers a year. His frequent coauthor and collaborator Muhammad Farooq (Sultan Qaboos University) was removed by Clarivate in 2022. Kadambot is part of the network led by fellow Nanthi Bolan (University of Western Australia), the biochar ring arm of Yong Sik Ok. Joining the group is Binoy Sarkar (University of South Australia).The group led by Pau Loke Shaw (King Saud University) include Kit Wayne Chew (Nanyang Technological University), Wei-Hsin Chen (National Cheng Kung University), and Hwai Chyuan Ong (National Yunlin University Science & Technology) have also been removed. In November 2024, Chemosphere, retracted three of Show's papers. The retractions were based on violations of the journal's conflict of interest policies, specifically concerning the submission and review process. It was found that Guest Editor Kuan Shiong Khoo, who had an extensive collaborative history with Show, handled the review of these submissions. Additionally, the reviewers closely linked to the authors influenced the acceptance of these articles, compromising the editorial process's integrity. Show has been associated with researchers and practices that have raised concerns within the academic community. His collaborations with individuals like Jörg Rinklebe and Christian Sonne, who have been scrutinized for their publishing practices, suggest involvement in networks that may prioritize quantity over quality in research outputs (FOR BETTER SCIENCE).Dai-Viet N. Vo a close collaborator of Pau Loke Show has been associated with concerns regarding research integrity. Notably, a paper he edited was retracted by Frontiers in Energy Research on June 12, 2024, due to multiple undisclosed conflicts of interest that compromised the peer review process. When Vo Nguyen Dai Viet was the author, Dr. Pau Loke Show was the editor. When   Pau Loke Show was the author,   Vo Nguyen Dai Viet became the editor. Four articles by Paul Loke Show were removed by the journal Frontiers in Energy Research (https://tienphong.vn) Ashok Pandey (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research) has 133 Pubpeer records are known for his editing   of Bioresource Technology. Pandey has been implicated in significant research misconduct. Between 2009 and 2020, 43 of his research papers published in the journal Bioresource Technology were retracted. While serving as the journal's editor-in-chief, Dr. Pandey handled the review process of manuscripts, for which he was later added as a co-author without proper disclosure, violating standard editorial ethics. His dual role as both editor and author in the same journal led to conflicts of interest, compromising the integrity of the peer-review process (THE HINDU).Adding to the list of HCR removal by Clarivate include Eder C. Lima (King Saud University, Saudi Arabia), includes collaborations with Papermill Navid Rabiee and Joerg Rinklebe, suggesting research activity in questionable or retracted publication practices as indicated by the note. Lima's publication record includes instances of excessive self-citation, with some papers citing his own work disproportionately (FOR BETTER SCIENCE).Rafael Luque is in biomass valorization, a field focusing on converting biomass into valuable products like fuels, chemicals, or materials. However, he is also Extreme Publisher,  with 54 PubPeers record.   In April 2023, the University of Córdoba, where Luque was employed, suspended him without pay for 13 years. This severe sanction resulted from Luque's unauthorized affiliations with external institutions, notably King Saud University in Saudi Arabia and the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, despite holding a full-time contract with the University of Córdoba. Luque's prolific publication record, boasting approximately 700 studies, has been a subject of scrutiny (EL PAIS). M. Santosh, a geologist at University of Adelaide and the China University of Geosciences in Beijing, has been under scrutiny for potential research misconduct. In 2024, concerns arose due to his exceptionally high publication rate, exceeding 60 papers within the year. Investigations by the 5GH Foundation, a Chinese non-profit agency dedicated to exposing academic misconduct, revealed that over 65% of Santosh's publications since 2020 in four journals managed by Chinese research institutions involved an "author-editor conflict." This term refers to situations where the author and editor roles overlap, potentially compromising the integrity of the peer-review process (5GH). Table 1. List of researchers with substantial highly cited papers who were removed from HCR list. Year HCR removed firstname lastname  category primary affiliation Network No. PubPeers 2024 Ki-Hyun Kim Engineering Hanyang University, South Korea Ok 68 2024 Ki-Hyun Kim Environment and Ecology Hanyang University, South Korea Ok 68 2024 Jechan Lee Cross-Field Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), South Korea Ok 9 2024 Sang Soo Lee Cross-Field Yonsei University, South Korea Ok, Ki-Hyun Kim 12 2024 David O'Connor Cross-Field Tsinghua University, China Mainland Ok, Rinklebe, Hou 29 2024 Ajit Sarmah Cross-Field University of Auckland, New Zealand Ok, Rinklebe 16 2024 Baoshan Xing Environment and Ecology University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States Ok 22 2024 Xinde Cao Cross-Field Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China Mainland Ok, Rinklebe 47 2024 Yuqing Sun Cross-Field Sun Yat Sen University, China Mainland Tsang, Ok 27 2024 Iris K. M. Yu Cross-Field Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Tsang, Ok 8 2024 Kit Wayne Chew Cross-Field Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Tsang, Ok 154 2024 Binoy Sarkar Cross-Field University of South Australia, Australia Ok, Rinklebe, Bolan 54 2024 Kadambot H. M. Siddique Agricultural Sciences University of Western Australia, Australia Farooq, Bolan, Rinklebe 47 2024 Kadambot H. M. Siddique Plant and Animal Science University of Western Australia, Australia Farooq, Bolan, Rinklebe 47 2024 Yakov Kuzyakov Agricultural Sciences King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Extreme publishing in China and Russia 2 2024 Eder C. Lima Cross-Field King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Papermill, Rinklebe 54 2024 Kakarla Raghava Reddy Cross-Field University of Sydney, Australia Papermill 6 2024 M. Santosh Geosciences University of Adelaide, Australia Papermill 267 2024 Dai-Viet N. Vo Cross-Field King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Pau-Loke Show 61 2024 Wasim Iqbal Cross-Field Shenzhen University, China Mainland Papermill 28 2024 Mohamed M. Abdel-Daim Cross-Field Suez Canal University, Egypt papermill 45 2023 Amit Bhatnagar Engineering Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland Sillanpaa, Ok 53 2023 Nanthi Bolan Environment and Ecology University of Western Australia, Australia Rinklebe, Ok, Hou 143 2023 Wei-Hsin Chen Engineering National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan Ok, Pau Loke 65 2023 Deyi Hou Environment and Ecology Tsinghua University, China Mainland Rinklebe, Ok, Bolan 130 2023 Eilhann E. Kwon Cross-Field Hanyang University, South Korea Ok, Rinklebe 57 2023 Yong Sik Ok Biology and Biochemistry Korea University, South Korea Rinklebe, Wang, Hou, Bolan 262 2023 Yong Sik Ok Environment and Ecology Korea University, South Korea Rinklebe, Wang, Hou, Bolan 262 2023 Yong Sik Ok Engineering Korea University, South Korea Rinklebe, Wang, Hou, Bolan 262 2023 Joerg Rinklebe Environment and Ecology University of Wuppertal, Germany Ok, Hou, Bolan 528 2023 Sabry M. Shaheen Environment and Ecology King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia Rinklebe, Ok 108 2023 Daniel C. W. Tsang Environment and Ecology Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Ok, Rinklebe 228 2023 Daniel C. W. Tsang Engineering Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Ok, Rinklebe 228 2023 Hailong Wang Agricultural Sciences Foshan University, China Mainland Ok, Rinklebe 130 2023 Hailong Wang Environment and Ecology Foshan University, China Mainland Ok, Rinklebe 130 2023 Pau Loke Show Biology and Biochemistry Taif University, Saudi Arabia Shu Shiung Lam, Rinklebe, Ok 384 2023 Muhammad Shahid Environment and Ecology King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Ok, Rinklebe 55 2023 Damia Barcelo Environment and Ecology King Saud University, Saudi Arabia STOTEN, Ok, Rinklebe 172 2023 Huu Hao Ngo Biology and Biochemistry University of Technology Sydney, Australia STOTEN 174 2023 Huu Hao Ngo Environment and Ecology University of Technology Sydney, Australia STOTEN 174 2023 Hwai Chyuan Ong Engineering National Yunlin University Science & Technology, Taiwan Ok, Wei-Hsin Chen 35 2023 Rafael Luque Chemistry King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Extreme publisher 147 2023 Wenshan Guo Biology and Biochemistry University of Technology Sydney, Australia Ngo 62 2023 Wenshan Guo Environment and Ecology University of Technology Sydney, Australia Ngo 62 2023 Ashok Pandey Biology and Biochemistry Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) - India, India Bioreseource Technology editor 133 2022 Muhammad Farooq Agricultural Sciences Sultan Qaboos University, Oman Siddique 34 2022 Nabeel Khan Niazi Environment and Ecology University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan Ok, Bolan 40 2022 Mika Sillanpaa Environment and Ecology King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Bhatnagar, Ok 83 2022 Meththika Vithanage Cross-Field University of Southern Queensland, Australia Ok, Bolan 71

AbstractA study by Ioannidis et al. (2024) investigates extreme publishing behavior, defined as publishing over 60 scientific articles in a single year. This phenomenon is attributed to both genuinely prolific authors and those benefiting from consortium agreements or questionable practices like gift authorship. This study uses PubPeer to investigate potential unethical practices among hyperprolific authors in Earth & Environmental Sciences to differentiate genuine productivity from spurious behavior. The study focused on hyperprolific authors, defined as those publishing over 73 papers annually. Using the database used by the  Ioannidis et al.’s study, 41 such authors could be found in Earth & Environmental Sciences. Their H-index ranged from 26 to 188, with a median of 102. Hyperprolific behavior increased sharply, from a few authors in 2005 to 22 in 2022. The top hyperprolific authors, including Guangming Zeng, M. Santosh, Mika E.T. Sillanpää, and Yong Sik Ok exhibited extremely high publication rates accompanied by a good number of PubPeer entries. Several authors faced significant PubPeer scrutiny, such as Yong Sik Ok, Jorg Rinklebe, Daniel C.W. Tsang, Ali Shafaqat, Muhammad Rizwan, and M. Santosh, indicating potential concerns about their publication practices. These findings highlight the need for deeper investigation into the practices behind high publication rates to maintain scientific integrity and rigorous authorship standards. IntroductionA new study by Ioannidis et al. 2024 examines the phenomenon of extreme publishing behavior. Extreme publishing defined as having more than 60 scientific articles published in a single year (over 1 article every 6 days). Using Scopus database, from 2000 to 2022 across various countries and scientific fields, the study found 3191 extreme publishing authors were identified outside of Physics and 12624 within Physics.The behavior is attributed to both genuinely prolific authors and those benefiting from consortium agreements or questionable practices like gift authorship. Key findings include: China had the highest number of extreme publishers outside Physics, followed by the USA. Significant increases in extreme publishing were observed in countries like Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Spain, India, Italy, Russia, Pakistan, and South Korea. In 2022, Clinical Medicine had the most extreme publishers outside Physics (n=678). While there is a good number of extreme publishers in Earth & Environmental Sciences (n = 57).The study found extreme publishers represented 4360 of the top 10000 most-cited authors across all sciences. The study highlights the increasing prevalence of extreme publishing and its potential to undermine authorship standards in scientific research. The study found that extreme publishers represented 4360 of the top 10000 most-cited authors across all sciences. This rise in extreme publishing, as noted by Ioannidis et al. 2024, may be due to more lenient authorship practices, evolving norms of co-authorship, or unethical practices such as paper mills. The study did not attempt to identify whether these authors are associated with overtly unethical practices like paper mills or citation cartels, as such characterizations would require in-depth evaluations of individual CVs and meticulous investigative work.While some exceptionally talented scientists may achieve this as head of a lab or director of institute through productivity and collaboration, there is growing concern that spurious and unethical practices, such as gift authorship, paper mills, and citation cartels, may contribute significantly to these high publication rates. To explore these concerns, PubPeer, an online platform for post-publication peer review, serves as a valuable resource.PubPeer allows researchers to comment on and scrutinize published papers, highlighting potential methodological flaws, errors, or ethical issues. By examining the entries on PubPeer for hyperprolific authors in Earth & Environmental Sciences, the study seeks to identify patterns of questionable practices and assess the integrity of the publications. This analysis will help differentiate between genuine scientific contributions and those potentially driven by unethical behavior. Ultimately, the study aims to enhance the understanding of extreme publishing behavior, promote transparency, and uphold the standards of scientific research. MethodsUsing the database used by Ioannidis et al. (2024) and available by Collins et al. (2024). The database of non-physics hyperprolific was downloaded. This study only uses the hyperprolific authors, defined as at a given calendar year if the author had their names listed as an author in more than 1 full article every 5 days, i.e. 73 or more full articles per year. This study only look at authors in Earth & Environmental Sciences.The hyperprolific authors were extracted, and their names were searched in PubPeer. PubPeer is an online platform where scientists and researchers can comment on and discuss published scientific papers. It allows users to provide post-publication peer review by highlighting potential issues such as methodological flaws, errors, or ethical concerns. PubPeer aims to improve the quality and integrity of scientific research by fostering transparency and accountability.  ResultsThe database was extracted for hyperprolific authors in Earth & Environmental Sciences. There are 41 authors with publication of 73 to 258 papers per year, a median of 85 papers. These authors are highly cited with H index from 26 to 188, a median of 102. The hyperprolific behaviour started in 2005 with 1-3 authors but  jumped to 7 In 2016 and rapidly increased each year 10 in 2019 and 22 in 2022.Appendix 1 displays the 41 hyperprolific authors in Earth & Environmental Sciences and their number of PubPeer Entries. Some authors face significant scrutiny, such as M. Santosh with 244 entries, Jorg Rinklebe with 448 entries, and Muhammad Rizwan with 72 entries, Mika E.T. Sillanpää (77 entries), Yong Sik Ok (180 entries), Daniel C.W. Tsang (93 entries), and Sunil Kumar (140 entries). These high numbers suggest potential concerns about their publication practices and warrant closer examination, with recurring methodological or ethical questions raised by the scientific community.Several authors (13 out of 41) have no PubPeer entries, such as Yongzhen Peng (0 entries) and Philippe Ciais (0 entries). This indicates their work has faced less public scrutiny. Notably, some authors with high PubPeer entries, like Yong Sik Ok, Ki Hyun Kim, Daniel C.W. Tsang, Ali Shafaqat, Muhammad Rizwan, and Jorg Rinklebe, are identified as collaborators, hinting at potential networks of frequent co-authorships and editorial practices that may need further investigation for ethical standards.Table 1 identifies 15 authors with hyperprolific publishing behavior in Earth & Environmental Sciences, characterized by consistently extremely high publication rates between 2000 and 2022. The top authors include Guangming Zeng (Hunan University, China) with 2159 papers, M. Santosh (University of Adelaide, Australia) with 1183 papers and 244 PubPeer entries, and Mika E.T. Sillanpää (University of South Africa) with 993 papers and 77 PubPeer entries. Other notable authors include Yong Sik Ok (Korea University, 730 papers, 180 PubPeer entries), and Yongzhen Peng (Beijing University of Technology, 1167 papers). Several authors have significant PubPeer scrutiny, such as Jorg Rinklebe (Wuppertal University, 448 entries) and M. Santosh, suggesting potential concerns about their publication practices. These findings highlight the need for closer examination of the practices leading to such high publication rates. Author_name N hyperprolific years Mean hyperprolific papers/year Pubs_2000_2022 N Pubpeer entries Affiliation Zeng,Guangming 12 140 2159 2 Hunan University, China Santosh,M. 10 93 1183 244 University of Adelaide, Australia Sillanpää,Mika E.T. 8 91 993 77 University of Johannesberg, South Africa Ok,Yong Sik 6 91 730 180 Korea University, S Korea Peng,Yongzhen 6 80 1167 0 Beijing University of Technology, China Kim,Ki Hyun 5 89 924 36 Hanyang University, China   Cao,Junji 4 81 801 1 Chinese Academy of Sciences, China   Tsang,Daniel C.W. 4 103 572 93 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China   Ali,Shafaqat 3 91 490 60 Government College University, Pakistan Guo,Yuming 3 83 470 2 Monash University, Australia Iqbal,Hafiz M.N. 3 114 541 53 Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico Xing,Baoshan 3 78 831 5 University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA Ciais,Philippe 2 99 499.5 0 Université Paris Saclay, France Kumar,Ponnusamy Senthil 2 162 530 27 SSN College of Engineering, India Rinklebe,Jorg 2 89 405 448 Wuppertal University, Germany

AbstractThis article presents a comprehensive review of the publication trends and influential authors in biochar research based on an analysis of articles published between 2008 and April 2023 in the Web of Science database. The study reveals a significant increase in the number of publications on biochar over the years, reflecting a growing interest in this field. The analysis of highly cited papers reveals the presence of tight clusters of authors, with notable leaders from Korea and China. These individuals demonstrate strong connections within their research networks. The article further identifies the most prolific authors in biochar research, highlighting their significant number of papers and citations. However, the article raises concerns about these hyperprolific authors who publish an unusually high number of papers and authors with excessively high citation counts. Such practices raise questions about feasibility, quality, and ethical conduct in research. Further investigation is necessary to understand the mechanisms behind hyperprolific authorship and ensure the maintenance of rigorous scientific inquiry and ethical standards. The article demonstrates the hyperbole in biochar research publications that may include citation manipulation and boosting. It pointed to worrisome practices by some hyperprolific authors in pursue of high citations. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of balancing productivity with the integrity and rigor of research to uphold the principles of quality and responsible scientific practice.IntroductionBiochar is a popular topic in the realm of environmental science and sustainable agriculture, with a growing body of scientific publications dedicated to its study. Biochar refers to the carbon-rich material that is produced through the process of pyrolysis, the controlled decomposition of organic matter in the absence of oxygen (Qian et al. 2015). This highly porous substance has gained significant attention due to its potential benefits in enhancing soil health, sequestering carbon, pollutant removal, and mitigating climate change. Over the years, numerous scientific publications have delved into various aspects of biochar, including its production methods, characterization, applications, and the ecological and agronomic impacts it can have. These publications have highlighted its potential role in sustainable land management practices, offering valuable insights to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers (Allohverdi et al. 2015).Biochar has been hailed as a potential game-changer in our efforts to combat climate change, improve soil health, and even address energy needs. Its appeal lies in its multifaceted benefits and applications which have led to considerable hype in both scientific and popular discourse (Kumar et al. 2023).The excitement surrounding biochar is primarily driven by its potential to mitigate climate change. Biochar is essentially a form of charcoal created by pyrolysis, which stabilizes the carbon in the material, turning it into a form that is not easily decomposed. Consequently, biochar can sequester carbon in the soil for hundreds or even thousands of years, keeping it out of the atmosphere where it would contribute to global warming (Lehmann et al. 2006).Another aspect of the hype is biochar's promise in the field of agriculture. It has been touted as a panacea for degraded soils, with the ability to improve soil fertility, increase agricultural productivity, and enhance resilience to climate change. Biochar can increase soil water-holding capacity, retain nutrients for plant use, and stimulate beneficial soil microbial activity, which collectively enhance soil health and crop yields (Jha et al. 2010).Biochar's potential role in waste management and as a renewable energy source has also led to considerable excitement. The process of creating biochar can help manage organic waste, turning a problem into a solution. Moreover, the heat generated during the pyrolysis process can be harnessed and used as a renewable energy source, adding to the green appeal of biochar (Liu et al. 2019).Despite the hype, it's important to note that while the potential benefits of biochar are impressive, they are not guaranteed (Baveye 2021). The effects of biochar can vary widely depending on a host of factors, including the type of feedstock used to create it, the temperature at which it's produced, how it's applied, and the specific characteristics of the soil it's added to. The burgeoning hype surrounding biochar has not only caught the attention of the public and policymakers, but has also sparked significant interest within the scientific community. This interest has led to a surge in the publication of research papers exploring various aspects of biochar (Baveye 2021). However, this proliferation of research also underscores the complexity of biochar science, as the results often reveal a nuanced picture of biochar's effects that can depend heavily on specific conditions and applications. Professor Baveye from Paris University called "hyperbole" in discussions around biochar to highlight the exaggerated claims made about its potential benefits (Baveye 2021). These claims are overblown or not sufficiently supported by empirical evidence. While it is true that biochar has shown promise in various applications, the variability in its effects due to factors such as feedstock type, production conditions, and soil characteristics means that it may not always deliver the expected benefits. Moreover, the long-term impacts of biochar application on soil and environmental health are not fully understood, leading to further caution (Baveye 2023). Scepticism or caution is called on the tendency to make broad, generalized claims about its benefits. Recent years have also seen a significant increase in the publication of highly cited scientific papers on biochar, which are often considered indicative of their impact and quality in the academic community. Identification of such influential papers can be achieved through databases tracking citation data, or via lists compiled by institutions like Clarivate Analytics.In a recent analysis of characteristics of highly cited papers in Environmental sciences by the author, the study reveals that a small group of exceptionally prolific authors, who publish between 60 to 100 papers annually, dominate the list of highly cited works (Abduh 2023). The majority of these authors work independently, with notable exceptions being two clusters publishing biochar in Korea and China. Network analysis exposes a collective of scientists with an impressive number of highly cited papers, indicating collaboration in publication and citation.The aim of this study is to analyze and understand the landscape of highly cited researchers and authors in the field of biochar. We seek to identify the most prolific contributors, understand their publishing patterns, and examine the nature and extent of their collaborations. By providing insights into the key influencers shaping biochar research, this study aims to illuminate the current state of this rapidly evolving field, and inform future research directions.MethodsThis study investigated publication pattern and highly cited papers focusing on biochar, published between 2008 and April 2023. To achieve this, the Web of Science database, a comprehensive source of academic and scientific literature developed by Clarivate Analytics, was utilized. The database was queried for all papers published under the topic “biochar" during the specified period.The Web of Science database is a trusted tool for research and citation analysis within the scientific and academic communities, as it allows users to track the impact of research, identify trends in academic publishing, and access literature across a wide range of disciplines.Data from the search results were downloaded and exported to MS Excel for preliminary analysis. Subsequently, VOSviewer 1.6.9, a software tool developed by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman at Leiden University Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), was used to analyze and visualize authors' networks.VOSviewer specializes in analyzing bibliometric data, such as citation and co-citation data, and can generate a variety of visualizations, including co-citation maps, term maps, and network diagrams. These visualizations enable researchers to understand the relationships among different research topics, authors, and institutions, and identify patterns and trends in scientific literature. VOSviewer is a widely recognized tool in the scientific and academic communities for bibliometric analysis (Qin et al. 2022).Results and DiscussionPublication trendThis study conducted an extensive review of articles published in international English scientific journals on the topic “biochar” listed in the Web of Science database between 2008 and April 2023. The results of the search produce 29,608 papers equating to an average of over 2,700 papers published annually in the past ten years. Out of these, the top 1% or 1,029 papers were identified as highly cited papers by Web of Science. These highly cited papers are distinguished by receiving a significant number of citations relative to other papers published in the same field and year, placing them in the top 1% based on citation count.To further analyze these 1,029 highly cited papers, a text keyword network was constructed using VosViewer. This network provided insights into the prevalent topics discussed within this influential body of literature (Figure 1).Figure 1 indicates the research in biochar can be grouped in 3 categories: the use of biochar for adsorption or removals of pollutants, the second is on biochar application to soil for plant growth and yield, and the third is on the degradation of biochar. A smaller group of topic indicates the subject on methods of digestion.

AbstractThis paper analytically analyzes the use and limitations of ranking systems for highly cited researchers compiled by Stanford University’s ranking of the world’s top 2% most influential scientists. This list is commonly used to identify influential and respected members of a particular field. However, it is important to critically evaluate the list and its methodology and  no such analysis to this date. From a critical analysis of the September 2022 version of this world’s top 2% of scientists list, this research finds that the database of the list is flawed, including inaccurately listing researchers as first publishing in the 19th century and continuing to publish until 2022, listing authors with low publication numbers and career lengths, mixing news articles and editorials with research papers, listing institutes as authors rather than individuals, and listing authors with a high percentage of self-citations. The study suggests that the promotion and use of such “standardized” citation rankings should be discouraged.

AbstractThe greatest challenge in scientific publishing is that incentives are focused on getting it published, not getting it right. The promotion and prestige of getting highly cited papers have become more prevalent in recent years. While having highly cited papers could imply a high impact, overly producing highly cited papers could raise doubts about the quantity, calibre, and real-world impact of such papers. There has not been any research on analyzing highly cited papers in environmental sciences. To fill this gap, this study surveyed 931,027 articles published in 2013-2022 in Environmental Sciences journals to identify highly cited papers and their authors. The top 1% citations of these articles were identified in 3 topics: (1) biochar, (2) pollution and environmental degradation, and (3) climate change, renewable energy and emissions. The findings also show that the top highly cited authors are dominated by a few extremely prolific individuals, publishing an average of 60–100 papers each year and having more than 20 highly cited papers. Moreover, most authors work independently except two clusters centred in Korea and China. The network analysis uncovers a network of scientists with a remarkable number of highly cited papers working as a team. Scientific publishing should be carried out honestly and ethically. The scientific community relies on the integrity of the research process and the accuracy of published research in order to advance knowledge and make important decisions. Publications should have honesty, openness, transparency, objectivity, and reproducibility principles.  IntroductionOne of the most widely used scientific quality metrics is citation count. Citation is often used to measure scientific research's quality and impact. When a paper is cited by other researchers, it can be taken as an indicator that the paper has made a significant contribution to the field and that it is considered to be of high quality and importance. Therefore, a high number of citations can be seen as a sign of the quality and significance of a researcher's work [1,2]. In particular, recent years have witnessed an upsurge in the promotion of highly cited and scientific or scholarly papers that many other papers have cited [1,2]. This is often taken as an indicator of the impact and influence of the paper in the academic community. Highly cited papers are often seen as being of high quality and significance and may be considered to be important contributions to the field in which they were published. There are various ways to identify highly cited papers, such as through databases that track and compile citation data, or through lists of papers that have been identified as highly cited by database institutions such as Clarivate Analytics or the Institute for Scientific Information or Scopus.Researchers may be interested in highly cited papers because they are likely to contain important and influential ideas and findings in their field. Reading and referencing highly cited papers can help researchers stay current with the latest developments in their field and may provide them with ideas for their own research. Funding agencies and grant review committees may consider the number of citations a paper has received when evaluating the quality and significance of a research proposal. Universities and other institutions may use citations to evaluate the quality of a researcher's work and decide which researchers to hire or promote. Furthermore publishers of scientific journals may be interested in highly cited papers because they are likely to be of high quality and may attract a large number of readers. In general, highly cited papers are often seen as being important contributions to the field in which they were published and may be of interest to a wide range of people in the scientific and academic communities.Clarivate Analytics is a company that provides information, analytics, and expertise to the scientific and intellectual property communities. One of the services they offer is the identification of Highly Cited Papers, which they do through their Web of Science database. To identify Highly Cited Papers, Clarivate Analytics looks at the number of citations a paper has received over a given time period and compares it to the number of citations received by other papers in the same field and published in the same year. Then, they use this information to create a list of papers that have received a high number of citations relative to other papers in their field. The selection process is based on its own citation data and is intended to identify papers that have significantly impacted their field and whose work has been widely recognized by their peers. The list of Highly Cited Papers is updated regularly to reflect the most recent data.There are a few things that can help increase the chances of a paper becoming highly cited:-          Conduct high-quality research: It is important to produce research that is well-designed, well-conducted, and that makes an original contribution to the field.-          Publish in high-quality journals: Publishing in a well-respected and high-impact journal can increase the visibility of your paper and the chances that it will be cited by other researchers.-          Write a clear and well-written paper: A clear, well-written paper that is easy to understand and follow will be more likely to be read and cited by other researchers.-          Use appropriate citation practices: Citing relevant and influential papers in your own work can increase the chances that your paper will be cited by others.-          Promote the paper: Making sure that the paper is widely available and promoting it to the relevant research community can increase the chances that it will be read and cited.It is worth noting that becoming a highly cited paper is not something that can be guaranteed, as it depends on a variety of factors such as the quality of the research, the relevance of the topic, and the extent to which it is of interest to the research community. Papers in the field of environmental sciences can address a wide range of important and timely topics, and if the research is of high quality and makes a significant contribution to the field, it can become highly cited. Environmental sciences cover a wide range of subdisciplines and include interdisciplinary research. Some ongoing trends and developments in the field of environmental sciences include:-          Climate change: Understanding the causes and impacts of climate change, and developing strategies for mitigating and adapting to its effects, is a major focus of research in environmental science.-          Biodiversity and conservation: Protecting biodiversity and preserving natural habitats is a key concern in environmental science, and there is ongoing research on topics such as species extinction, habitat loss, and conservation strategies.-          Environmental pollution: Research on the causes and impacts of environmental pollution, as well as strategies for mitigating and remedying pollution, is a major focus in environmental science.-          Renewable energy: Developing and implementing renewable energy sources is an important area of research in environmental science, as it can help reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and mitigate their impact on the environment.-          Environmental policy and governance: There is ongoing research on the development and implementation of effective environmental policies and governance frameworks at the local, national, and global levels.These are just a few trends and developments in the field of environmental science. The field constantly evolves as new research is conducted and new challenges and opportunities arise.Scientists have considerable enticements to publish highly cited papers, and in fact, their professions depend on it. The obligation and pressure to publish to evaluate a scientist or institutional impact and scientific reputation have become a new facet of publishing over the years. However, it is important to note that citation is not the only measure of scientific quality and that it should not be the only factor considered when evaluating the impact and significance of a researcher's work. Other factors, such as the originality and importance of the research, the soundness of the research methods and conclusions, and the relevance of the research to the field, should also be taken into account.It is generally accepted that a high number of citations is an indicator of the quality and significance of a researcher's work. However, it is possible for papers that contain fraudulent or unethical research to receive a high number of citations, either because the fraud is not detected before the paper is published or because the paper is cited by other researchers who are unaware of the fraud. In such cases, the high number of citations may not reflect the research's true quality and may result from the authors' fraudulent or unethical practices. The scientific community needs to be vigilant in detecting and addressing fraudulent or unethical research in order to ensure the integrity and reliability of the scientific literature.Environmental sciences as a multidisciplinary field have not been studied in detail in terms of its highly cited papers. This paper aims to study its traits and authors. A number of studies have looked at various characteristics of highly cited papers and the researchers who wrote them. For example, some studies have analyzed the content and methods of highly cited papers in order to identify common themes or trends [1,2]. Other studies have examined the demographics and career histories of highly cited researchers in order to identify factors that may contribute to their success [3]. By studying the traits and authors of highly cited papers, it is possible to gain insights into the factors that contribute to the success and impact of scientific research. This information can be useful for researchers looking to improve the quality and impact of their own work, as well as for organizations that support research and development. MethodsThis study has the objective of studying highly cited papers in environmental sciences in 2013-2022. Tthe Web of Science database was used, by searching all papers published under the category "Environmental Sciences" from January 2013 to December 2022. Web of Science is a database of scientific and scholarly literature, including journal articles, conference proceedings, and other types of publications. It is produced by Clarivate Analytics and is widely used in the scientific and academic communities as a tool for research and citation analysis. Web of Science includes a range of features and tools that allow users to search for and access scientific and scholarly literature, track the impact and influence of research, and identify trends and patterns in research. It includes a large number of journals and other publications from a wide range of disciplines, and it is frequently used by researchers, librarians, and others to find and access research in their field of study.Search results of the research publication data were downloaded from the library's website and exported in MS Excel, and authors networks were analyzed and visualized using the VOS viewer 1.6.9. VOSviewer is a software tool that can visualize and analyze bibliometric data, such as citation and co-citation data. It was developed by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman at Leiden University Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). VOSviewer can create various visualizations, such as co-citation maps, term maps, and network diagrams, that can help researchers understand the relationships between different research topics, authors, and institutions. It is often used in conjunction with bibliometric databases, such as Web of Science or Scopus, to analyze citation data and to identify patterns and trends in the scientific literature. VOSviewer is widely used in the scientific and academic communities and is available as a free download.  Results and DiscussionHighly cited papers in Environmental Sciences Based on the publication database and publications from environmental science journals in Web of Science in the last decade (2013- 2022), this study conducted a comprehensive survey of 931,027 articles or equal to over 93,100 papers were published per year. Amongst these articles, Web of Science identified the top 1% or 10,153 papers that were considered highly cited papers. Highly cited papers are scientific papers that have received a large number of citations from other papers in the scientific literature or top 1% based on the number of citations received when compared to other papers published in the same field in the same year. A text keyword network was of these 10,153 highly cited papers was performed using VosViewer to examine topics that occurred in these papers. While environmental sciences is a large multidiscipline. the network produced by the software and uncovered in Figure 1, highly cited papers only study around 3 main topics: (1)    Evaluating biochar performance and use as chemical adsorbentsBiochar is a type of porous, charcoal-like material that is produced by heating organic material, such as wood, in the absence of oxygen. It has a high surface area and a network of tiny pores, which make it highly effective at adsorbing a wide range of chemicals from solution. Biochar has been as a chemical adsorbent in a variety of applications, including: Removing heavy metals from water where biochar has been shown to be effective at removing heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, and cadmium, from contaminated water; Removing pesticides from soil as biochar can adsorb pesticides from soil, helping to reduce their levels and mitigate their harmful effects on the environment; Biochar can be used to filter out VOCs, which are harmful air pollutants that are emitted by a variety of sources, including paints, adhesives, and cleaning products; Removing oil spills by adsorbing the oil from the surface of water.(2)    Global pollution and environmental degradation including microplastic accumulation in environment, plant and ocean, ocean acidification.Microplastics are small pieces of plastic that are smaller than 5 mm in size. The accumulation of microplastics in plants and oceans is a cause for concern because of the potential negative impacts on both the environment and human health. In plants, microplastics can interfere with normal growth and development, as well as affect the plant's ability to absorb water and nutrients. Microplastics can also enter the food chain when plants are eaten by animals. In oceans, microplastics can accumulate in the water column and on the seafloor, where they can be ingested by marine life and enter the food chain. Microplastics have been found in a wide range of marine species, including fish, shellfish, and birds, and can cause physical harm and disrupt the normal functioning of their organs and systems. The accumulation of microplastics in the environment is also a concern because they can serve as a vector for the transport of harmful chemicals and pathogens, which can have negative impacts on both the environment and human health.(3)    Climate change and reduction of emissions.Several themes under this topic including renewable energy, climate change scenario and emission estimatuon.There are several novel ways to estimate the emissions of a country in relation to its economic growth, including the use statistical analysis to examine the relationship between economic growth and emissions: By analyzing data on a country's economic growth and emissions over time, it is possible to estimate the relationship between these two variables. Economic models can be used to forecast emissions based on projections of economic growth. These models typically incorporate variables such as energy use, industrial production, and transportation patterns, which can be used to estimate emissions in the future. Furthermore scenario analysis involves developing a range of potential scenarios for economic growth and examining the corresponding impacts on emissions. This can help to understand the potential trade-offs between economic growth and emissions reduction. Moreover bottom-up approach involves estimating emissions sector by sector, based on the emission intensity of each sector. This can provide a more detailed understanding of the sources of emissions within a country and the potential opportunities for reducing them. 

Scientific publication metrics  are commonly used to assess the quality of scientific publications and works. These metrics can be used to assess the caliber and significance of a scientific publication as well as the productivity and accomplishment of a scientist's study. Citation metrics and the quantity of papers are closely associated, notwithstanding the importance of citations. Studies suggest many scientists are capable of publishing a scientific publication in just five days. This study critically investigates these so-called hyper prolific authors using the Stanford top 2% world scientists database. The findings clearly show that certain authors publish, on average, 100–200 publications annually, even those with a single author. A closer inspection uncovers this top 2% database's weakness and the fact that these authors from the field of medicine are actually journalists. Even Nobel laureates were ranked lower than some of these journalists. Subsequent inquiry reveals certain related researchers who publish more than 100 articles in environmental sciences per year and set records for the most highly cited papers ever. In order to ensure that the process of publishing a paper is carried out honestly and that the search of knowledge is not hampered by personal interests, it is decided that the scientific community has to develop ethical norms and procedures regarding the number of publications.