I know nothing about this person, but if his case is the average, he's probably got a lot of grad students doing the actual work.
I can't tell you how many papers/patents I wrote only to be listed as the 5th contributor or some such thing.
I can't tell you how many papers/patents I wrote only to be listed as the 5th contributor or some such thing.
My guess is each postdoc could produce 1 to 2 papers a year on there own. A PhD student at such a difficult school can probably produce one paper a year once they are in there third year.
14 publications in 2021. Let's guess 6 of which are from postdocs, we'll say 4 of which are from PhD students, leaving us with 4 publications between both professors, or two from each. Of course, this is all very rough estimation.
This model leads to a necessary accrual of credit to more senior researchers because the default assumption is to assume credit of a group to the more senior individual.
The problem is there's no way (or less way) for the less senior individual to establish credit unless they are publishing on their own, which isn't feasible.
In this way, group efforts tend to trickle toward the person in the senior position, and credit accrues to people in management of large groups irrespective of where ideas are coming from or who is doing the work. We say "someone is a great scientist" because they have an administrative position with reference to a large group.
Whoever has the most papers with the largest groups wins.