[derbOac]

> Anyone who has actually worked it research knows every field is filled with 10's of thousands of garbage research papers that are of no value, and that all the key work is produced by just a hand full of people. I remember also reading some researchers that looked at dozens of fields and breakthroughs and found the same thing. All the real work in any breakthrough is done by just 2 or 3 people at most. so this is incorrect, what I said is actually very provable.

In my experiences, the current system has led to problems with a small number of people "sucking up credit" that's unwarranted, in the sense that they're very very good at taking credit from others and building up a CV that makes it look like they're at the center of things.

In any event, I'm very skeptical of these things at this point based on my personal experiences. Usually progress is incremental and involves a lot of efforts from lots of individuals. Even bigger advances usually involve a confluence of things.

Bibliometric studies are often flawed because they make a lot of false assumptions and ignore realistic dynamics, with corruption and gaming of metrics.