While I am generally a fan of Ioannidis' & believe he raises valid points here & elsewhere, this piece is more than a little ironic. As of September 12, 2018, he has authored 58 papers published this year (and it's no fluke - 2017: 64, 2016: 78, 2015: 74, etc...)
I do think the article raises some valid points about authorship, and I have certainly seen abuses (in both directions: undeserved authorships granted to people barely involved in the work, and screwjobs that denied people who deserved an authorship their appropriate credit)
People that run up large numbers of authorships (excluding outright nefarious conduct, like publishing in sham journals) are likely senior members of a lab or group for which they led many studies being written up by subordinates.
If they are genuinely involved in the design and provide critical feedback on the final product, they've earned authorship. No worries there.
If they're getting the honorific authorship for merely being the senior person of the team, but haven't actually read the paper, that's a little more disturbing (and yes, we all know that this happens).
