If the axis labels are correct (which, after referring to the full paper, they seem to be) then I think this is the only reasonable explanation. I.e. that the dataset tracks
all authors of scientific publications, rather than those who are active researchers (or had research careers and subsequently passed). [Note: I did not see any attempt to take this into account upon skimming the full paper]
Given the high attrition rate in many academic fields (and the small number of publications typical in early years) this would then rationalize the low numbers seen here. Though, I would say the meaning of these numbers would be quite different than if this were presented for those who had research careers (the more relevant number I think).