The complex ecosystem of hyperprolific authors

In recent years, the rise of hyperprolific authors, researchers with exceptionally high publication counts, has drawn increasing attention in debates on research integrity and evaluation. While such productivity may reflect legitimate collaboration and large-scale science, it also raises concerns about questionable research practices, distorted incentives, and the reliability of scholarly assessment. Despite its prominence, the phenomenon remains poorly defined and inconsistently studied. This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on hyperprolific authorship to examine how it is defined, investigated, and perceived across disciplines. We identified 18 articles addressing hyperprolific authorship and 79 further contributions discussing related academic behaviors. Results show no consensus on thresholds or methodologies to identify hyperprolific authors, with approaches ranging from bibliometric analyses to qualitative assessments. The phenomenon is acknowledged across scientific domains, yet its interpretations diverge from being seen as a natural outcome of collaborative research to being framed as a statistical anomaly or a warning sign of misconduct. Its links to malpractice remain ambiguous, shaped by disciplinary norms, publication stages, and the intentionality of actors. By situating hyperprolific authorship within a broader ecosystem of academic (mis)behaviors, we conclude that it should not be reduced to a single category of misconduct but understood as a multifaceted, context-dependent phenomenon with important implications for research integrity and evaluation.