Prevalence of Hyperprolific Authors in Sports Medicine and Musculoskeletal Health & Implications on Research Quality

Background: The phenomenon of hyperprolific authorship has raised concerns about research quality and academic integrity across scientific disciplines. Hyperprolific authors (HA) have been defined as those that publish at least 72 papers annually, while almost hyperprolific authors (AHA) have been defined as those that publish 61-72 papers per year. This study aimed to identify and characterize extremely productive (EP) authors, meaning both HA and AHA authors, in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health research and evaluate their research impact.Methods: We analyzed publications from the top 20 CiteScore-ranked journals in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health between 2020-2024 using the Scopus database. Authors were classified as HA (≥72 publications/year) or AHA (61-72 publications/year). We extracted publication metadata, authorship positions, citation metrics, and geographic affiliations. Research quality was assessed using h-index and total citation counts.Results: From 16,983 articles across 20 journals, we identified 68,209 unique authors, of which 222 (0.45%) were classified as EP authors (125 HA, 97 AHA). Five authors maintained HA status throughout all five years, with the most prolific author producing 1,174 publications and achieving a peak annual output of 262 articles. EP authors were predominantly based in Europe (42.3%), Asia (28.4%), and the Americas (22.5%), with Germany, Japan, China, and the United States as leading contributors. Most EP authors occupied middle authorship positions (median 59.8%-60.9%) with relatively low first authorship rates (median 1.9%-2.1%) but substantial last authorship representation (median 22.6%-27.0%). Despite high publication volumes, EP authors demonstrated strong citation impact with a mean h-index of 79.94 and mean total citations of 35,653.9.Conclusion: Extremely productive authors represent a small but influential minority in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health research. Their high citation impact suggests that prolific publishing can coexist with research quality and scholarly influence. However, the concentration of research output among a few authors and geographic clustering in high-income countries raises important questions about research equity and global representation in the field.