Publication Trends in Artificial Intelligence Conferences: The Rise of Super Prolific Authors
Open accessAbstract
Papers published in top conferences contribute influential discoveries that are reshaping the landscape of modern Artificial Intelligence (AI). We analyzed 87,137 papers from 11 AI conferences to examine publication trends over the past decade. Our findings reveal a consistent increase in both the number of papers and authors, reflecting the growing interest in AI research. We also observed a rise in prolific researchers who publish dozens of papers at the same conference each year. In light of this analysis, the AI research community should consider revisiting authorship policies, addressing equity concerns, and evaluating the workload of junior researchers to foster a more sustainable and inclusive research environment.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Peer review at AI conferences is stressed by rapidly rising submission volumes, leading to deteriorating review quality and increased author dissatisfaction.
“Peer review at AI conferences is stressed by rapidly rising submission volumes, leading to deteriorating review quality and increased author dissatisfaction.”
From Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Section 2 reports a consistent rise in accepted papers at major AI conferences, supporting the claim of growing publication volume. Our copy does not establish rising submission volumes or say that they strain peer review, reduce review quality, or increase author dissatisfaction; searches for those review-related points found no supporting passage. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredObtaining constructive and high-quality peer reviews has become more challenging due to the increase in the number of paper submissions, especially in fast-moving areas like AI.
“This dissatisfaction has grown as obtaining constructive and high-quality peer reviews has become more challenging due to the increase in the number of paper submissions, especially in fast-moving areas like Artificial Intelligence (AI) [4, 5].”
From Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
The Abstract and section 2 report a sustained increase in papers published at major AI conferences. They do not establish that submissions increased or that this made constructive, high-quality peer reviews harder to obtain; section 5.3 discusses pressure on junior researchers rather than review quality. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Rolnick, D. et al. Tackling climate change with machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55, 1-96 (2022).
- Ching, T. et al. Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine. Journal royal society interface 15, 20170387 (2018).
- Mater, A. C. & Coote, M. L. Deep learning in chemistry. Journal chemical information modeling 59, 2545-2559 (2019).
- He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770-778 (2016).
- Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 25 (2012).
- Brown, T. B. et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in neural information processing systems (2020).
- Vaswani, A. et al. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30 (2017).
- Kipf, T. N. & Welling, M. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2017).
- Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O. & Le, Q. V. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 27 (2014).
- Wager, E., Singhvi, S. & Kleinert, S. Too much of a good thing? an observational study of prolific authors. PeerJ 3, e1154 (2015).
- Bork, S. J. & Mondisa, J.-L. Engineering graduate students' mental health: A scoping literature review. Journal Engineering Education 111, 665-702 (2022).
- Bagchi, S. & Svejnar, J. Does wealth inequality matter for growth? the effect of billionaire wealth, income distribution, and poverty. Journal Comparative Economics 43, 505-530 (2015).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2026) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-026-01188-x · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.09737 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Azad, A., & Banu, A.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- ORCID
- Azad, Ariful
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2412.07793
- OpenAlex
- W4405300791
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2339607)
- U.S. Department of Energy (DESC0022098)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence conferences, publication trends, prolific authors, authorship policy, research equity, young researchers, research productivity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
