text:
Do repositories of translated papers exist?
I've recently been told to read an article for my research, but do not speak the language it is written in ("Drei Vorträge über Diffusion, Brownsche Molekularbewegung und Koagulation von Kolloidteilchen", Smoluchowski).
It's fairly heavily cited, so I imagine that someone somewhere will have translated it.
Has anyone heard of/found online repositories of translated academic documents?
Failing that- I don't suppose anyone reading this happens to have a translation?
(P.S. the original author is long dead, hence I will not be asking him for a copy)

I presume you don't mean things like the official American Institute of Physics translated versions of Soviet physics journals?

Only few modern journals are this bilingual; in chemistry Angewandte Chemie ("Applied Chemistry") with its English set sister Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or the Russian Journal of Organic Chemistry as translate of Zhurnal organicheskoĭ khimii. For the specific article, perhaps the copyright holder does know about a translate (http://pldml.icm.edu.pl/pldml/element/bwmeta1.element.bwnjournal-article-pmsv2i1p530bwm) or you find a German speaking colleague guiding you through the pages.

It wasn't so long ago (only 3 years for my department) that most departments had as a PhD requirement enough knowledge of one or two foreign languages to be able to puzzle out the meaning of a paper written in those languages.  So don't expect a translation to exist.

I read French math papers without knowing French. You get used to it. But you should also note that - as you said - most of the non-English papers are old and you have a good chance that somebody else has also written down the main theorems/results/etc. in a textbook, or lectures notes or in some other paper citing the original work.

I am not aware of any online repository for translations or even citations to translations, though those certainly are good ideas. The closest existing option would be a translation index, which I discuss below in #4.
For my recent research I've relied on a fair amount of papers written in languages unfamiliar to me (mainly Russian and German), and the following procedure is roughly what I do when I identify a foreign language paper I want to find an English translation of. I figured this out primarily through trial and error because there were many Russian articles I really wanted to read. You may be able to use similar procedures to identify translations to a language other than English as well, though I have not.

Try searching Google Scholar for the author and a rough translation of the article title. Sometimes you can find either a direct link to a translation online or citation information for a translation in print. (This covers a number of databases with a lot of translations too, like the NASA technical reports search and DTIC.)
Check if a regular (cover-to-cover or partial) translation of the journal exists. By now I'm very familiar with the regularly translated journals in my field, so I don't need to identify these any longer. Here are some ideas about how to identify these journals:

Try a Google search for the foreign journal name. This often returns a publisher's website for the journal and/or Wikipedia, either of which often mention a translation journal.
Try checking the catalog of the Library of Congress for the foreign journal, which often mentions the existence of a translation journal. Searching WorldCat for the foreign journal name often can return a translation journal. Also, it's worth looking for collected works of an author on WorldCat, as they'll often include translated articles. And as user1310503 mentions, frequently you won't know the collected works book contains the article you want until you look at the book.

Try searching WorldCat and NTRL for the author and/or approximate translated title of the paper you are looking for. NTRL is produced by the US Department of Commerce, and it lists many translations produced by the US government. It's worth trying variations of the title and/or author's name, especially if the original was not written in the Latin alphabet as transliteration schemes can vary. If you can find the item on WorldCat or NTRL then ask a librarian about obtaining the document (or, if you're familiar with services your library offers, ask the ILL folks or whoever directly). Often you can only get citation information this way, but that still can be helpful.
Citation information for translations produced is often compiled in indices. Typically you look up a journal to see a list of articles translated from that journal. Most translation indices cover translations produced in a certain time period (note the difference with when the original article was written; I can think of an article that was translated about 25 years after the original). Some other translation indices are comprehensive up through a certain date. Below are several which come to mind immediately. Your local library may have one of these or a different series. There is much overlap between these indices, but not enough that you should only check one.

Consolidated index of translations into English. This is typically the first index I check as it is fairly comprehensive. However, it only has translations up through the 1960s in volume 1 and 1980s in volume 2. (In the case of the Smoluchowski paper the original poster mentioned, it's not listed in volume 1. Volume 2 lists translation number 69-16866-07D. As for how to obtain that, your guess is about as good as mine. I asked the British Library and they don't have it.)
World index of scientific translations.
Technical translations. Available online.
Consolidated translation survey. Available online.
Asking the British Library also can be helpful. They seem quite adept at searching through these indices (including their own, e.g., the NLL translations bulletin) and they have a large translation collection themselves. I have emailed them before asking about translations of papers I've had no luck identifying translations for, and been very pleasantly surprised by the results. They have many translations which do not appear to have been indexed publicly, including ones not indexed in their NLL translations bulletin. Obtaining copies of these translations can be rather difficult, though, as they are not always willing to send them via interlibrary loan.
The CIA FOIA Electronic Reading Room is a surprisingly good source for citations to translations and also English language abstracts for articles published in the 1940s to 1960s. The CIA seems to have scanned some sort of internal card catalog which had citations for a large amount of scientific journal articles not written in English. Often these citations include information about available translations and English abstracts. Unfortunately the card catalog is often illegible due to the poor quality of the scans. And the search has fairly limited capabilities. Still, I find this is one of the most valuable sources I've checked for translations of articles in the relevant time period simply because it often lists things which no other index has. (Not to mention the translations the CIA made themselves, some of which you can find on the website as is. I also filed a FOIA request for one CIA translation last year and am still waiting for them to finish the request.)
There are also many many other translation indices available. The above was just what comes to mind immediately. Check out some of the links I give at the bottom for more. Additionally, you can often find indices for particular series, and it's not uncommon that these series are not included in the consolidated indices I mention above.

Searching Google Books or HathiTrust can be useful to find citations of translations. Often you'll find the translation indices mentioned above, but not always as for some of the indices, the information provided is rather terse, not including even an author name or title (just the page range, journal year, journal vol., and journal issue!). Try searching for variations of the first author's last name (try different transliterations if necessary), the journal name, the year, and the first page number for the original article. Adding an English translation of the article title may also help. Try both putting the titles translation in quotes and not in quotes.
Some journals specialize in translating selected articles from foreign journals. Presumably these translations are made by request, though I am not certain. One example from my field is Fluid mechanics: Soviet research. The journal appears to now be called the
International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research
. I've browsed the previous title in the stacks before to look for interesting foreign research, and you might find doing the same for a similar journal in your field to be worthwhile.
Checking articles which cite the article you are interested in. Some of them might mention a translation. Also worth checking are bibliographies for your field. I can think of one translation of a very highly cited article in my field that I was entirely unaware of until I checked a bibliography for my field. (Incidentally, I have never seen any paper cite this translation, or any of the other two translations I identified for this article. On that note, you might find some redundancy in translations.)

Word of mouth can help too. I would not have heard about an entire series of translations had I not emailed some retired researchers about obtaining a copy of a particular foreign paper. To the best of my knowledge this series never appeared in any translation index, and while there is an index of them, it's not obvious how to obtain them. Thankfully one of the researchers I contacted had many of them in a storage unit and he sent them to a university library archive.
If the above fails, you can try checking abstract journals, both in your native language and foreign languages. These depend on your field. Due to the shorter length, it's often fairly trivial to translate a foreign language abstract of an article via Google Translate (few sentences vs. frequently 10+ pages). Frequently foreign abstract journals are translated or partially translated as well, sometimes under a similar name as the original journal, but other times published in an English language journal. For example, old (50s-60s) editions of Applied Mechanics Reviews sometimes have English translations of selected abstracts from different editions of Referativny Zhurnal. For a while the mechanics edition of that Russian review journal was translated as Soviet Abstracts: Mechanics, too.
Another method I've found useful to get some information about a foreign paper is to compile a list of quotes about the paper from articles that cite it. This will often summarize the most important aspects of the paper in a language you understand. Unfortunately, there are some disadvantages. One is that a paper may be commonly cited for one topic, when it actually discusses several topics which are of interest to you. You may never learn of the topics not mentioned in the citations this way. It's also not uncommon for an author to cite a paper without reading it, so some of what is said will be merely rehashing of what others said. The "telephone game"/"Chinese whispers" aspect can come into play as well; I can recall one particularly hard to find paper I tracked down which said nothing at all about a certain subject on which it's commonly cited for. So this may not be entirely reliable.
What can you do if you've identified a citation for a translation but can't find a copy of the actual document anywhere? If you're unfamiliar with obtaining documents from other libraries, ask a librarian as they can help you. You can also search for the translation series on WorldCat and see if you can identify libraries with that series. Often it's possible to buy a translation listed on NTRL (though not always). Sometimes visiting a library with large translation collections can help too. The Library of Congress's technical reports section has proved very helpful to me in this case. Unfortunately, you will not always be successful even if you find clear citation information. It's not uncommon to find out that a translation existed at one point but is now unavailable or inaccessible. Reasons a translation could now be unavailable include it being thrown away, it being misplaced, it being destroyed in a fire, etc. Some libraries do not participate in interlibrary loan, so you may not be able to get copies of anything from those places. A translation could also seem unavailable if few libraries which have translations from a particular series have the one you are interested in. You might have to contact many libraries before finding one with the particular document you want.
After that point, if you really want a translation of the article but have not found one, you could try paying a translator or using Google Translate. I've translated several articles into English via Google Translate now, and while it is tedious and the result often is not ideal, I do find it to be worthwhile for certain articles. As an example, here's a series of three 1938 articles which I translated from Russian and posted to my university's repository.
I am less knowledgeable about finding translations of books. I check WorldCat for the authors of a book I'm interested and sometimes am successful. Sometimes you may find translations of isolated chapters listed in the translation indices. For translations of books to English, contacting the British Library may also be useful as I recall they had a special program for this at one point.
This is a rather large topic, actually, and I certainly have missed a lot, so feel free to ask any questions and I'll do my best to answer them.
Other guides with additional information about obtaining translations:

"How to obtain a translation" by Betty B. Brociner (1977) (Dated, but has a lot of information about how to find translations and also how to request a translation from a translator.)
"Translations of scientific and technical literature: a guide to their location" by Kathleen Wright (1987) (Newer but still dated.)
Caltech
Cornell, another at Cornell
Linda Hall Library

user72102, sorry for the delay. You make an interesting suggestion. When I get the time I'll write something up with more details, even if it's only a blog post. I definitely have many stories, which I suspect some people would find interesting for their own sake.

Your answer mentions journals with "regular (cover-to-cover or partial) translation[s]".  Perhaps you might be willing to provide an answer to the following question on this topic? Are translation journals still a thing any more?

It's an awesome question as undoubtedly there is waste going on with retranslations occurring.
All that said, if it is very important to you and you have flush funding (I did when I was doing a hard science experimental Ph.D.) just go buy a translation. (couple hundred bucks...nothing compared to tools and supplies.)  You'd be surprised what you can charge to a grant. Push the limit a little and remember what Grace Hopper said (easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission!)
Another idea:  contact some of the people (who are alive) who are English speakers that cite it.


text:
How to respond to threats by disgruntled, powerful former collaborator
I am a mid-career mathematician. I have had a long-term collaboration with a well established, influential,  and recognized senior mathematician. We wrote many papers together for the last ten years and the first papers have been the fruits of a real collaboration and exchange of ideas. However, in the last papers, there was no collaboration anymore and I have been the only one to work on the problems and solve them, even though the papers were cosigned.
About 3 years ago I sent a note to this professor with our two names on it, proposing a project and proving a result in a given framework. She/He has been sitting on the file since then, without any kind of input.
One year ago, during a discussion with other collaborators, this project resurfaced and we, the new collaborators and I, obtained a series of very interesting and deep results in another framework. We developed methods which were completely different from  what I sent to the professor. With my new collaborators, I eventually posted a paper on Arxiv in the summer 2017.
A few days ago, the professor to which I sent the file 3 years ago came back to me with insulting emails and threatens to tell the mathematical community and my new collaborators that the project originates from her/him (which is not true) and that I have been deceitful.
I  made the ethical mistake of not informing this professor of my new collaborations and my new collaborators of the existence of this file that I sent to the professor. However, the intersection between the note sent to the professor and the final paper is very small and I have often felt bullied by this professor and wanted to distance myself from her/him. Since this professor is  influential, the situation is very distressful.
What would be the best way to handle the situation now ?

Welcome, @foliated234. I've edited your question, hoping to clarify who did what with/out whom. Feel free to roll back or change if I misunderstood.

Do you still have some kind of proof that the file was sent from you to them or that you have versions of the file which are dated and older than any they could have? That could help in case of an escalation. (Of course, I hope you won't need it.)

Yes, I still have the 3 years old email containing the file that I sent to the professor. and where I proposed the project. For proving her/his point in one of the threatenings email, this professor included the very same file, claiming that when a file is originated it becomes shared intellectual property. Since the two files are the same, I guess it proves that she/he did not do anything with it.

Right now, given the lack of details (and maybe you don't want to add more), it's hard to say what to do.  One thing that would be good to know is: what are you actually worried about?  If you are tenured (I guess mid-career means this), you don't need to worry about that.  What sort of influence does this person actually have?  Disputes happen from time to time, and if your collaborator is a jerk and people know this, they may not pay much attention to their rantings.
That said, my suggestion is to reply with something along the lines of:

Sorry we neglected to mention my preprint with you.  That project came about independently, and I should have told you about it earlier.  I've added an acknowledgement and a reference to that preprint.  See attached.  Other comments welcome.  By the way, what do you want to do with our preprint?

From my point of view, it makes sense to mention your preprint from 3 years ago in your newer paper, and being generous with acknowledgements costs you nothing.  (Presumably you've had discussion about related things, which, even if your colleague did not actively contribute to your understanding of things, may have been helpful in some ways.  Though again, I don't know the specifics, so you have to decide this.)
Even if you can win, no one wants to get into some big fight about who had what idea when, so if there's a reasonable way to mollify your colleague, it's probably worth it.  Admittedly, your colleague doesn't sound reasonable, but if you add an acknowledgement and reference to that preprint, I imagine most people would think you behaved ethically even if your colleague goes on a rant-page.
You should also discuss this with your present coauthors before doing anything.

+1 You are opening the door for softening the situation. It may not work, but demonstrates goodwill. Generally, especially senior people believe (and sometimes rightly) that discussing research ideas warrants some credit somewhere. It is sometimes said that ideas are cheap and the real work comes after, but that is not always true. If in doubt, acknowledge.

A major issue is the problem of recommendation letters for promotion to full professor rank in a community which is not very large (I would be eligible next year). Thanks a lot for your advice, since I prefer to do whatever possible to first try to smooth things out. I will  do that: not answer the threats and insults at this stage, but discuss first the situation with my present coauthors, and then send a polite email to the professor exactly along the lines you propose.

@foliated234 At universities I'm familiar with, your co-authors will not be asked for letters, so I guess you are worried about your colleague convincing others in the area you did something underhanded.  Do you know how this senior colleague is viewed by other senior people in the area, in terms of honesty, integrity, reasonableness?  I would suspect that if this person has a history of treating others unfairly, others in the field would know about this.

Before you do anything else, first of all, secure your full independence from the prior professor. It includes funding, reference letter, community work, committees, etc. Don't answer any of his e-mails in this period; answer only some else's questions regarding your relationship.
Second, save the proof material: the old copies of what you did with him, e-mails, etc.
Third, only then reply to the old guy. Insist on your viewpoint and threaten him back, telling him that in case of claims from his part you'd issue the counter-claims from your part. Remind him that false accusations can be legally prosecuted. If he did issue false claims, actually check whether you are right from the legal viewpoint and perhaps proceed with the help of the attorney.
Fourth, proceed with publication as you wished.

I would swap (2) and (1) here - save the evidence first! Otherwise, good advice.

Is step three prudent? It seems to me that a good line of defense (your steps one and two) is enough. A counter-threat isn't necessary and can backfire.

I would secure anything proof your version first of all.

Thanks for the advices. I kept all the email correspondences and evidence that she/he did not contribute at all. I would rather not escalate immediately though, maybe only counterattacking if she/he goes through the threats. What I fear the most, is that she/he defames me behind my back and I don't have the opportunity to defend myself.

I don't like the tone of this response: "old guy", "threaten".  In particular: "Remind him that false accusations can be legally prosecuted." Anything can be legally prosecuted, but the idea of one pure mathematician [the OP's username suggests he is in geometry/topology] suing another would sound risible to the mathematical community.

@PeteL.Clark If the senior collaborator follows through with defaming the OP as threatened, what would be risible about suing in self-defense?

@Elizabeth: How do you call the worldwide mathematical community into a courtroom?  How can a court determine whether a project "really originates from his collaborator" or not -- without a profound understanding of the intellectual content, this is absolutely impossible.  With a profound understanding of the intellectual content, it is (probably) inherently subjective.  How can the OP prove that his collaborator said bad things about him if these bad things are expressed in person?

The closest thing I can think of to this that ever actually happened was when the New Yorker published an article about Perelman that depicted Yau in a rather unflattering light.  Yau threatened legal action against the New Yorker.  But it never happened.  And this is for a published article.

@PeteL.Clark To sue someone, you need to expect something to come out of it. E.g., you future job might depend on your success. If it is the case, there is no reason for not doing it. As for mathematical evidence, the parties in the court might ask for external evaluation.

This is an interesting question to me as I can easily see myself in the same situation in the future, in case I actually stay in the academia. Currently I am a postdoc, considering using my skills in a different way. I grew tired of the feudal organisation pertaining modern academia.
I belong in a completely different realm (biology) but essentially I see the core issues in my sphere. I believe this is a growing widespread problem, and that significant conflicts will be inevitable to anyone seeking a truly scientific (=unbiased and independent) career. I elaborate below with my proposed line of action.
There has been a steep increase in the number of academics. That meant comparatively few established professors had to advise numerous younger academics. In many institutions most of the oldest professors had a straightforward entry to their departments, and became local political figures. For numerous reasons, funding and career pressure has shifted to productivity scores, thus in order to stay at the top most established professors had devised strategies keep up with the ever-growing number demands. They use their influence to attract (artificial) productivity numbers which further increases their influence. This generated a feudal system where so numerous are the vassals paying toll to 'lablords' in order to have a place to work.
Finally, anyone willing to become a 'lablord' needs to be nominated or somehow shoulder his way into this aristocracy. Most of the academic vassals are trying to buy their way into aristocracy over extended years of subservience. The main problems are (i) not all aristocrat professors can or will nominate one of their 'loyal vassals'; (ii) because of the channelling productivity goals are ever-increasing far beyond the reach of many of the most invested young academics; (iii) most a true scientist cannot remain loyal to biased practice, e.g. stick to some clan doctrine or etiquette. The result of such feudal system is a bubble, which is bound to lead to a general revolt (a PhD cannot be unmade).
Now I believe you find yourself in this uncomfortable moment where you've been paying loyalty for so many years, feeding the very influence sphere which you did not foresee as your future enemy. Because if you wish to grow as a scientist, you must free yourself. Unfortunately there are currently too few young academics at war against the established aristocracy, so it'll be hard to obtain allies. My advice to you is that you make a fundamental career choice:
(a) You remain loyal and lower scientific & moral standards to enjoy some academic peace for longer. In such case you must see what to openly sacrifice to hopefully please your 'lord' while offering something else to reestablish the political support. You must know this person well enough and would know where to press. Mind you that it might be just too late, and there is no true obligation of the other part to reward you or even really stop a defamation campaign after you make your sacrifice(s).
(b) You accept the inevitable conflict head-on and think of a strategy to rid yourself of your ancient master. You have put yourself in this position over years and there is probably no friendly way out of this. Likely you'll lose the support of anyone who sides up with the other part, which may include people you consider as friends. For at least a couple of years, expect this professor to seek to destroy you (you'll be an example), which may easily cost your current career plans. Do you consider joining the industry?
Personal advice: (a) could lead to humiliation followed by depression, but may well be the only way to save your current projects. I think the best strategy in (b) is to generate further revolt against said professor so this person suddenly finds itself with too many political enemies and thus cannot focus on you. Be assured that there is a bubble and this person is scared of it crumbling, as illustrated by the overreaction; so if you're lucky (a) could buy you time until (b) is embraced by others and you can backstab with a->b.
I do not think there is any intermediate path, as not clearly abiding to (a) tends to be perceived as (b) by the other part.
Sorry if too long or philosophical.

I was tempted to downvote when I still couldn't see an answer after the third paragraph. But then I enjoyed the analysis, which is kind of insightful although not of much practical help, I suppose. Perhaps you can think of more practical/strategic implications?

@henning I understand but I think there is no one protocol I can recommend here. I do suggest practical implications in choosing (a) or (b), but I cannot pinpoint how to melt back the professor in (a) or reduce the enemy's influence in (b) without specific information.

I must add that many comments in the other answers seem to speak from a US-centred reality where someone could gather material to sue the other part in the conflict. This is not a reality almost everywhere else in the academia.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
PhD interview presentation (invited)
I've got invited to a lab seminar. I am so excited and nervous, too.
I applied for the same research group before, and unfortunately, I was not selected after short presentation and interview at a conference.
Instead, the PI (call A) recommends me to the chief of the research center and another PI (call B) saying they have one open position.
So, B invited me to come to Switzerland (French speaking area) and join the lab meeting.
PI said the entire members attend the meeting usually and I have 30 minutes for a presentation. I guess at least 15 people will be at the seminar.
So now I am considering that the presentation consists of
1) Research during my master: I have three published articles in peer-review journals (first author), one article published in a peer-reviewed journal (co-author) and a couple of studies under revision and ongoing research. I am going to categorize them into two themes and summarize the main objectives and results.
2) Research skills
3) Research interests related to the project.
It is not just I introduce the research to other people in an international conference. I would like to become a part of them, and there has to be some evaluation as a prospective PhD student and co-worker.
But, I have never been in the position. I would be grateful if anyone gives me some advice on the presentation. I don’t want to lose the opportunity again.

"Research interests related to the project," what project?

You have thirty minutes. Perhaps only twenty-five, because you might want to leave five minutes for questions. You cannot present four articles, a couple of studies, and ongoing research. (I'm sceptical of how you managed to publish four articles -- they will probably be too -- you might need to justify.) That's far too much information. If all the articles are closely related, then maybe opt for a high-level overview of those articles and what you want to do during your PhD.

What is your field? In what journals have you published? With three articles as first author you should be able to choose any lab you want to work...

The expected presentation lengh is less than 45 min. So I thought 30 min would be good. And my major is MR physics and application in psychiatric diseases. The funded project is for the study of psychiatirc disease using MRI.

Have you asked the PI what they expect? Is this an interview seminar or a research seminar? Clear communication is never a bad thing, especially when starting a new relationship.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What's the average retirement age in the universities in British (UK/Ireland/Australia/NZ) system?
In UK/Ireland/Australia/NZ, they don't seem to have a set retirement age. However, when do faculty members actually retire, or 'have to' retire (due to peer pressure, for example)?
This question is related to: 1. How common is it for tenured professors to retire?,
but my question is specific to the British system, and
2. How common is redundancy in the British (UK/Australia/NZ/Ireland) system?
If there is no tenured position in these countries (except Ireland, perhaps), isn't it easier to pressure the older faculty members (who may not be doing much research but at least be doing all the mandatory teaching) to step down?
In a tenured system such as US/Canada, it would be difficult to fire a tenured and aged professor even if he/she is research inactive, I believe?
Edit: With the follow up comments, the refinement of my question is: can the management in a university in the British system use the redundancy as an excuse to remove an 'old' and research inactive (but ok at teaching etc.) faculty member?

You are asking for 4 different countries. Even though they use the same "system", retirement age is independent of that. In Australia, retirement age is 65, though there is pressure to increase it. That said, older staff members are expensive and it is often cheaper to give them a redundancy payoff. I've seen it happen.

@DaveClarke, I assumed that in all these countries, there was no 'formal' retirement age in any field (not necessarily only in academia). I thought forcing one for retirement based on age is nowadays considered discrimantory. Are you saying that in Australia, 65 is the mandatory retirement age for everyone in academia (http://www.industrysuper.com/understand-super/retirement/retirement-age/)?

Technically in Australia you don't get the pension until you are 70. So you can retire before, if you have enough savings/superannuation or after if you want. http://www.news.com.au/finance/australias-official-retirement-age-of-70-highest-in-the-world/story-e6frfm1i-1226903204989

@DaveClarke, thanks. However, voluntary retirement is not what I am concerned with. I am interested in knowing what happens when the faculty members are past 60-65 and research standards may be fading (I am not saying that age and research are related). In the US system, they can't be fired if they are at least able to teach fine (in addition to other administrative duties), due to the tenured. But in the British system, since there is no tenure, what are the implications in such cases there?

Why do you assume that academics become research inactive at 65?

@Chu, Anticipating such a response, I had clearly said in my comment "I am not saying that age and research are related" !!! I am just interested in the case when someone at an age at which it is extremely difficult to find another job (say, 60-65yrs), is not so much research active but is fine at teaching (and other administrative duties). In the US system, if the person is tenured then the university can't fire him/her in any case other than the extreme ones. I want to know how he/she would do in the British system in which the management can do redundancies in principle.

@Chu, please don't force to make this as a discussion on 'age' and 'research activeness' issue. That's not my question nor I even implied something of that sort. Please read my question, edit and comment to your earlier comment and then respond if you have an answer.

To be a bit more specific:
ctokelly is correct to say that there is no mandatory requirement age, as this was indeed phased out, but from the UK Government website:

[S]ome employers can set a compulsory retirement age if they can clearly justify it.

In practice, this seems to vary from university to university. Oxford, for example, do set a compulsory retirement age for their staff. From their website:

Council has agreed to maintain a retirement age for university academic and academic-related staff[...] All existing members of academic and related staff who have a normal retirement date of 30 September immediately preceding the 66th birthday will be deemed, from 1 October 2011, to have a retirement date of 30 September preceding the 68th birthday, which shall be the EJRA.

Cambridge have a similar policy: see here and here.
Others, such as the University of London and York, seem not to.
In the other direction, UCL suggest that their employees may need to work until 65 to access their full pension. From their website:

Effective from 1 October 2011, there is no compulsory retirement age at UCL. Staff may voluntarily retire at a time of their choice, subject to providing appropriate notice. Many staff may continue to retire at their pension age (currently 65 years) because this is when they can access their full pension benefits although they have the choice to work beyond this age. Staff may be able to flexibly retire or retire before 65 years (normally accessing reduced pension benefits) depending on their pension scheme rules. (emphasis mine)

The answer seems to be, then, that it depends on the individual university. Oxford and Cambridge do seem to be in the minority in enforcing a mandatory retirement age; most universities stress in their policies that the age of retirement is a choice.
As to when academics actually do retire: I couldn't find any hard figures on this, although the general consensus for the UK across all job sectors is that people are choosing to work longer. I should imagine, however, that the default is still somewhere between the former mandatory age of 65, and the 67 or 68 set by Oxford and Cambridge.

In the UK there is no longer a mandatory retirement age because having one would be discriminatory on grounds of age under 2011 legislation. So you cannot be compelled to retire. In fact, the current generation tend to retire at 65 more or less because that's when their pensions can be fully realised.
Future generations of academics in their mid-60s may respond differently because they will have different (as in, less generous) pension structures.

In Ireland there is no statutory retirement age. That said, under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 (see Section 34 for more detail) to 2011, it does not constitute discrimination on the grounds of age for employers to fix mandatory ages for retirement of employees so a university can fix a retirement age if it wishes.
Also the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 removed the compulsory retirement age for new entrants to the public service (covered some universities) with effect from 1 April 2004. This means that staff do not have to retire at the normal retirement age of 65.
Staff who are ‘new entrant’ on or after 1st April, 2004, the minimum
retirement age is 65 years.
Staff who are deemed not to be ‘new entrants’ shall be entitled to hold office until the age of 65 years. However, a person may retire on reaching the age of 60 years
For an example of polices in some Irish Universities see here, here, and here.

The retirement age in New Zealand is, officially, the state retirement age of 65. The politicians are flip-flopping over raising this.
However, as far as I am aware there is no mandatory age of retirement. It's simply the age at which you are allowed to collect the state pension. Some professors continue working well into their seventies, just because they love their job.

What do you mean by official retirement age? Is it the compulsory retirement age in New Zealand?

Sorry. I see what you mean. By 'official retirement age' you may have meant the age when the state pension can get started, but one doesn't have to retire if they don't want to?

@John yes. The retirement age is the age at which you may collect the state pension. It is not compulsory to retire at this age. Only in very few occupations are compulsory retirement ages allowed or enforced.

Do you see profs employed beyond 65 in new zealand? Or it is rare?

@John it's quite common I think to work for at least a few years after 65. I know of a few who are in their 70s and still teaching, but I'm not sure how much research they still do or what the level of pay is. Long story short: if you can still do your job, your age is irrelevant.


text:
How to deal with people judging your 'overproductiveness'?
I am in 4th year postdoc working in applied math areas in which 1-3 papers a year is considered a good publication rate. I have been publishing 10-13 papers a year for the last 4-5 years (have never gone for a 'low-quality' journal as considered in my respective areas). I would think that my hardwork would be looked upon in a good way by my colleagues. But I gradually realized that some of my peers have been seeing this publication rate in negative spirit. I keep on having to explain them how I could publish so many papers - that I work hard is not a good answer for them. I feel strange that  hardwork is being judged, e.g., the quality of my work, or that my coauthors may have worked harder than me, or that I might have found some low-hanging fruits, etc. I don't know how to deal with such a reverse peer-pressure.
Moreover, sometimes, merely answering that 'I work hard' may be taken offensively by the other person.
Is there any better ways to explain 'overproductivity' to peers, in a non-offending way, how I publish more (and good quality) papers than the average in my field?
This question may be related to Productive but not respected advisor - Should I continue with him? , though the OP also states that his advisor's citation count was 'too low' which I think is not the case here.
This question is definitely not meant to self-praising nor to demean my colleagues who are generally very nice people. I feel that this issue could come up when searching for permanent job-search and the search committees may also see the record in a wrong way adversely affecting my chances. Hence, the question.

You're working too hard. Other people may be working well, but people will always be compared to other people in any field. Your output of 300% is likely to negatively impact the workspace.

@Compass Not necessarily... it may also be the case that the O.P. has recently broken through into a new area of low-hanging fruit, or is very good at collaborating.

@jakebeal I would like to use the Hot Fuzz clause here. OP is Sgt. Angel, and his lab is the Met.

@Compass, Sometimes if I say 'I work too hard' in my response, then the other person may take it as if I am saying that 'he\she is not working hard'. This has actually happened to me before, even though I didn't mean in that way at all.

@jakebeal, ' it may also be the case that the O.P. has recently broken through into a new area of low-hanging fruit, or is very good at collaborating.' it is exactly these kind of responses by my peers that I am referring to !!!

@John Well, what do you attribute your unusual productivity to?

@jakebeal, I am facing the same problem with you that I have asked the question for: (1) first you raise the possibility of me having found low-hanging fruits, and (2) I need to explain again why I am 'unusually productive' :) I only have one answer, 'hardwork'.

Probably, I should modify my question 'how to explain 'overproductivity' to peers in a non-offending way' or something?

Surely you can say something more specific than "hard work", how do you work hard? how do you spend your time differently? Answer with the assumption that they work as hard or harder than you.

@rpattiso, +1 for 'explaining how do you spend your time differently'. That I should be able to do, though not immediately.

@John "low hanging fruit" doesn't mean bad quality. It can mean that you have found a key understanding, and suddenly everything falls in place 4 times faster than the usual. I don't see that as a deprecation of your work, on the contrary, it may very well the cornerstone of a good deal of future work.

@Davidmh, I guess that's true, but it would heavily depend on the speaker's intention of using this phrase.

Out of curiosity, why are you still a post-doc if you are that productive? Also, are you a postdoc in academia? I'm currently finishing up postdoc in a government biology lab after 2 years and I've noticed my current work environment differs greatly from a academic setting.

If you spent more time on each paper (or consolidated some), do you think you could get them into more prestigious publications?

Sounds like the Tally Poppy Syndrome at work.

Slowly put on your sunglasses and say "deal with it"... That will solve it, I promise.

It's worth addressing the quality question head-on. If I met a person with very high output, I would be suspicious that the output was of low quality, i.e., making the wrong quality-vs-quantity tradeoff, or engaged in a LPU strategy. E.g.: Are you sure your output is of high quality (good journals publish bad papers all the time)? Are you sure you are publishing in chunks that best serve the field, rather than LPU? Etc. Why? Some of the resistance you are encountering is likely to be skepticism that these things are really true.

@RichardErickson, I am a 'senior' postdoc in academia. Traditionally, in my field, 4-5 years postdoc before going for a tenure-track is usual (though I am now a 'senior postdoc' which has most benefits of faculty members except not tenure-track.

@RBarryYoung, in general, one can always spend longer on a paper and add more and more material in it. But I have to stop at some point and get the work peer-reviewed. But I don't think I could have added significantly new stuff which would quality for a more prestigious avenue even if I had spent more time. On the other hand, I always go for one of the best technical journals in my respective field.

It is sometimes considered polite to attribute one's success to luck, regardless of how one may feel. Incidentally, this is a culture-dependent question.

@John might be worth documenting your work process one day or week, eg keeping a time diary of your workday. Then you can look back on it and think about what the typical researcher does differently. That might help you build up some empathy and understanding here

@Compass, thanks for modeling the kind of person that OP was asking about how to deal with. That was what you were doing, right?

I would assume that people consider, say, 3 papers to be a lot, and beyond that that you should try to publish more complex or better papers.

@Reid asked the right questions about the rather intriguing situation the OP describes. I find disappointing that the OP did not answer them.

What is "hardwork"? I thought this was a spelling error at first, but I see it ten times on this page.

It might be helpful to consider the impact of your papers. Are they getting cited positively by others? In other words, are these contributions becoming bricks in the great building of knowledge? Or just shiny pebbles... If you focus on contributing to the body of knowledge in the true sense of the word, the paper count becomes irrelevant.

@Did and Floris, I didn't answer Reid's comments since they were again of the same judgmental nature that my question referred to! No. of citations and impact mostly tell you if you are working on an active area of research. Not answering these questions would make the question applied to general 'highly productive' researchers rather than restricting it to my own case. But if you really think it would be useful to know all these things to answer my question, then (1) I always publish in highly impactful journals, (2) cited very well compared to the average citations to papers in my field.

If you still have problems with your colleagues underappreciated you @John please let me know, my department needs new stuff

In my opinion there is something missing in your post: you mentioned what is the average publication rate in your field and your publication rate; but you never mentioned anything about your other duties: teaching and supervision. How does this compare with the rest of the field?

@NickS, I teach 1-1, i.e. 1 course in each of the two semesters. This is usual teaching for postdocs in my field at R1 universities. The full faculty members have 2-1 teaching at R1 universities. Probably at public universities which are R1 but a bit lower ranked it may be 2-2. I can not supervise grad students since I am not a faculty member but I informally advise students in my group.

Which means that you actually have more time you can invest in research than those faculty members. Don't also forget about the admin stuff they have to do, which people on a full time position have to do...When I got my full time position I discovered that the time I can spend on research dramatically decreased compared with the postdoc, and if a postdoc would have told me that he can do more research because he works harder I might have found that a bit offending. Don't take this wrong, given your output you are working harder than many other people in your field. But are you sure that's

... the only reason?

@NickS, the question is not about why I or someone else think I am 'overproductive', nor did I compare the publication count with other tenure-track faculties (a direct comparison, if you insist though again the question is not about that, can be possible with other postdocs with equivalent years of experience - most postdocs have same type of teaching load as mine). The question is how to politely deal with people who judge your 'overproductiveness'.

" I would think that my hardwork would be looked upon in a good way by my colleagues"......" - that I work hard is not a good answer for them." ......." I feel strange that hardwork is being judged, e.g.,".........."Moreover, sometimes, merely answering that 'I work hard' may be taken offensively by the other person.".........Everywhere in your post you write about working hard and hard work. Also, you make it clear that in the past you used "hard work" as explanation... I am trying to emphasize why "hard work" is probably not the best answer and why some people could find that offensive...

Part of finding a better answer is understanding why the answer you thought is best might not be perfect...... And again don't get me wrong, based on your output it is pretty clear that you are working much harder than most people, and when you compare yourself with other postdocs, hard work is most likely the reason for you output.....But if you compare yourself with tenure people, hard work might not be the primary reason.

One more comment which is not related to the question, but I think is good to know. My biggest regret about my PostDoc is that I didn't work hard enough. I did good work, but given the time I had for research I know I could had done more. Now when I have a hard time finding time I can spend on research I regret that I didn't use that time effectively.... And I heard the same comment made by many other people. So, good for you that you are not making the same mistake. And keep in mind that your answer might hit a sensible point for the other person :)

@John Just show them this meme.

I'm not surprised that hard work isn't considered a convincing answer.  It's not plausible that you are putting in four times as many hours as your peers.  Hardly anyone actually works a hundred hours per week, and even that would achieve a fourfold increase only if your peers are putting in just twenty-five hours.  Instead, it's possible that you are working far more efficiently than your peers, but that's a tricky answer to give.  You'll offend people if it comes across as "I'm probably just smarter than you are" or "you sure must be wasting a lot of time", and you won't look good if it comes across as "I cut corners to try to rush my work into print as quickly as I can".
One common attitude in mathematics is that publishing a lot of papers is a waste of your potential: if you have the time and energy to do that, then you should be spending it trying to write better papers, not more papers.  How strongly this is felt depends on the subfield, so I don't know whether it applies to your area.  To the extent it does, there may be no compelling explanation you can give for publishing a lot of good papers but no fantastic papers.  (If you are publishing some fantastic papers, then you don't need to worry about this.)

Is there any better ways to explain 'overproductivity' to peers, in a non-offending way, how I publish more (and good quality) papers than the average in my field?

Probably not. Your peers might simply be envious, in which case they already feel bad about the productivity difference and there's probably nothing you can say to make them feel better about it.  (They might need to vent to a friend about how frustrated they are or talk with a mentor about how to improve, but they probably aren't looking for an earnest conversation with you about how you manage to accomplish so much more than they do.)  Or your peers might have legitimate concerns about your approach, in which case no boilerplate explanation will address the concerns and you'd be better off discussing this issue with a trusted mentor instead.  Either way, I don't think you should interpret their questions as genuine requests for information, but rather as complaints.  There's probably no simple answer that will change their minds.

Thanks. In my areas, more papers is usually better. Anyway, I can certainly ignore my colleagues in a polite way. But I was more worried about someone judgmental in the future search committees during my job-search. Anyway, perhaps there is nothing one can do about such things in one way or another.

Exactly: such questions are not requests for information, but are passive-aggressive complaints.

FWIW, I can see myself asking a peer who outputs much more than I do (at a quality level I respect) for what they do differently. Learn from the best, or so they say. "I don't have a life", "I manage to remove distractions from my work hours", "I give ideas and sketches to students and have them work out the details" and "I don't know, it just works that way for me" can all be valid answers. That is to say, if I were to ask such a peer and were brushed off, then I'd be offended (because of the assumption). Feel the situation before choosing your reaction. (cc @paulgarrett)

"One common attitude in mathematics is that publishing a lot of papers is a waste of your potential". Out of curiosity, was the same thought of Erdős? Or did he get a free pass in the community because he was already a recognized genius by the time he became a prolific publisher?

My impression is that Erdős largely got a pass because he was brilliant and eccentric.  His reputation is a little tricky to assess historically, since his style of discrete mathematics based on elementary techniques has become increasingly popular.  Nowadays everyone acknowledges that he was an important mathematician, but decades ago there was some grumbling that his personal story led to his getting more attention than his mathematical contributions deserved.  I think it was mainly prejudice based on his field, but publishing so many papers probably didn't help.

Eccentricity was certainly not the reason why E "got a pass", as you say, rather the opposite. Look rather at having proved deep theorems early on in his career.

Erdos would have been a much better mathematician without dopaminergic substances or if he had a wife to help him eat, relax at night and get 8 hours of sleep. :P The obvious answer is that different people need different work habits due to personality, cognitive abilities, etc.

When I hear people use terms like overproductiveness and hardwork, I essentially tune out. In general, I find individuals who describe themselves as hard workers to be some of the worst colleagues. While potentially unintentional, these terms are insulting in that they suggest that the person you are talking to is not productive and not a hard worker. Your publication rate is not solely because of your hardwork.
When needing to describe a publication rate that is 5 to 10 times higher than "good" colleagues, and you will have to do that often, you need a better reason. For example, do you have lots of collaborators, less teaching, is writing just easy/fast for you? It is unlikely that you work 5 to 10 times longer (or more efficiently) than good colleagues. Maybe ideas come 5 to 10 times quicker to you than good colleagues. The key is to understand and be able to explain why you are publishing more.

I have used the word 'overproductive' in inverted commas! I don't endorse it either. 'hardwork', I do. However, as I mentioned in my comments, I quickly realized that saying that I am hardworking could be taken as 'you are not hardworking' - I have modified the question appropriately now. I don't have any significant differences in duties with my colleagues. The bigger question is being judgemental towards 'high-achiever'.

@John unless someone can explain how, not why, they are a high achiever, I discount self proclaimed high achievers.

The question is not about 'self-proclaimed high achievers'. The question is about peers (completely unprovokedly) confronting the 'high-achiever' (in terms of productivity) and asking how he\she publishes more than average, and then judging the 'high-achiever' if they don't get answers they might want. This is a completely separate issue than you are answering to.

I'm not going to down-vote this answer, but I don't support the view expressed in the first paragraph that the term 'hard work' is "insulting in that it suggests that they person you are talking to is not productive and not a hard worker".

@MrMeritology how else would you view "I publish 10x as much as you because I work hard"?

@StrongBad there are many ways to interpret it without any consideration of what such a statement may imply about me. First, the speaker probably knows nothing about me and how hard I work (or don't). And I have not basis for evaluating how the speaker uses "hard work" vs. my usage. Finally, I personally know that phrases like "hard work" are often short-hand for a whole complex of things, not just one thing (time or energy or whatever).  One more thing: I make it a practice not to tie my assessment of myself to what other people say, intentionally or unintentionally.

@John There are many interpretations of 'hard work'. In reality, your process differs from others in some way. If you think its because of the time you put in, say how much time and you'll find the other person is probably putting in just as much. If you've found a way to optimize certain parts of your research - that is what they are interested in knowing. When its neither of those, 'hard-work' then seems to be a word for thinking you "try harder" (which is the offensive version), or that you have no idea of what the regular processes are - so you can't be more specific. (unknown shortcuts)

@MrMeritology: specifically, saying "the only reason I do 5 times more than you is that I work harder than you. There is no other reason" is nothing other than a claim that you work 1/5 as hard as I do. Of course, it's wise not to be too riled up when colleagues say such things, but the fact remains that telling colleagues they don't work hard is not good people-handling and isn't helpful to anyone (even to the questioner's self-insight), even if the colleagues ought to be wise enough to weather it.

@SteveJessop - your elaboration/interpretation of the phrase "hard work" ("...the only reason I do 5 times...") goes way, way beyond what John was implying, in my view. I would interpret "hard work" as a short label for a whole complex of actions, choices and circumstances. But as I said in my answer, I think he'd do better to explain the choices and trade-offs he has made, and how this approach fits his goals and capabilities.

@MrMeritology You said "In reality, your process differs from others in some way." - then say that instead of "hard work".  It's misleading to say "hard work" when you mean something else.

@Izkata I understand how you might think this is misleading.  However, it's very common in social settings to use expressions that labels or symbolic, and thus are less than full statements.  For example, watch any interview of a sports figure or politician after they have won (or lost) a contest, and often you'll hear them summarize their success (or failure) with a word or phrase, but such a summary is clearly not the whole story, or even the most important. They are socially convenient.

@MrMeritology the goals of such statements are invariably either self-aggrandizement or obfuscation, neither of which is going to make your colleagues respect you.

it's very common in social settings to use expressions that labels or symbolic, and thus are less than full statements — It is also very common in social settings to be unintentionally insulting, because you are assuming incorrectly that the listener uses the same social idioms as you do.

@StrongBad "how else would you view "I publish 10x as much as you because I work hard"?" ...Well, conversely, how else can we literally explain that he does 10x more papers, other than he is doing 10x more work? Whether you call it "10x as much work" or "working 10x harder"...that is what he is literally doing.

@DrZ214 I find it much more likely that either the papers are not comparable or there is another area where the output is considerably less than either someone is putting in some combination of 10x the hours, effort or smarts. The average "good" academic is smart enough and works hard enough that it just seems unlikely that someone can outpace the field by 10x.

@StrongBad I wouldn't start with any assumptions about quality. A suspicion and an assumption are two different things. "Unlikely" is also a dangerous word. Without quantifying, it could mean literally "less than 50%" or even something like "statistically impossible." Truthfully, the only way to settle it is to actually read those papers. 10 to 13 a year for 4 to 5 years could be anywhere from 40 to 65 papers. If John wants to link us to them, I'm all for it.

@DrZ214 I didn't say anything about quality, I said not comparable, which I think includes a lot of factors other than quality.

If I put myself in the place of those colleagues who seem envious of his progress, I personally would rather hear that the OP is more productive because he works harder (even if I believe I work hard), than because he's smarter (or any other quality which I have no power over). In the former case one is faced with the choice of trying to work even harder, or accepting that the OP has different priorities in life. When I look around me, I see many people who work hard, but I think they realize that there are a few who make choices which allow them to work much harder (not referring to myself).

I would suggest that you may find it very informative to step back and take some perspective.  I recommend consideration of Joy's Law:

"No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else."

The fact is, that the world is very large and full of a lot of very intelligent and very hard working people.  Some of them are very scientifically productive by some metrics, some of them are not very productive by those metrics but are productive by other metrics, some are taking long gambles or running into "normal problems" that make them not look particularly productive at all even if they are doing all of the right things.  Others have made choices that mean they are not actually being particularly scientifically productive---they may be productive in other areas (e.g., teaching, parenting, StackExchange) or they may not be for any number of reasons.
If you are one of those very smart and very hard working people, that great!
When somebody else asks you about your productivity, however, I think that it is a good idea to begin with the assumption that they are also a very intelligent and hard-working person who simply has a different mixture of skills, preferences, opportunities, and choices than yourself.  Something is causing a difference between your circumstances, and it's probably not just hard work.
The fact is, if you are producing a lot of good papers, that's going to be due to a whole bunch of factors lining up nicely.  Please understand that I am not trying to undervalue your accomplishments in many ways: it's simply that there are so many ways that circumstances can run counter to rapid scientific publication.
I would thus recommend reflecting on what circumstances beyond hard work that are enabling your current productivity.  You may find it interesting and informative for its own sake (and your future maintenance of productivity when you are inevitably faced with challenges), and it will give you a more palatable answer for your peers.  And if you don't know what it is that's making things work well for you right now, you can just say something like:

"I'm not really sure.  Things are just really going really well right now!"

That response tells the other nothing. If they want to think you somehow cut corners, this will reinforce that believe. And that is what the OP is explicitly trying to avoid. His problem is not dudes in the coffee line, it's hiring commitees.

@jakebeal, I never said nor even alluded to that people having 1-3 or 0 papers a year are not intelligent. If the whole experience of scientific research and being constantly peer-reviewed doesn't make one humble and respectful to other's research, then there must be seriously wrong in him/her.

Similarly, I also expect respect from others. If a postdoc who is struggling with bad salaries, disrupted family life due to frequent moving for different postdoc positions, visa issue in foreign countries, constantly under thread of loosing visa if his funding is running out, etc. and yet is doing his best to get some work out, 'a whole bunch of factors lining up nicely' are the last words he wants to hear. My question, now with others' comments/answers I can put it better, was how I could quantify 'hardwork' in this case. This has been concretely done by MrMeritology and others' answers.

@John It sounds like you are taking offense because you are thinking narrowly about "factors that are lining up in your favor."  These include: 1) Your research interests and skills are well-matched with your community, 2) You appear to be quite capable as a writer, 3) You are not suffering from significant physical or mental illness impairing your ability to work, 4) Your chosen avenues of research are not turning out dead ends that cost you years, 5) Your chosen research goals can be accomplished with moderate resources and time.  These and more like them are integral to your productivity.

it is a good idea to begin with the assumption that they are also a very intelligent and hard-working person who simply has a different mixture of skills, preferences, opportunities, and choices than yourself . That's the way to go. +1

If you publish many papers, there are several possibilities. One is that you are good. Another one is that you are higly specialized and solve problems hardly anyone else is interested in. Another one is that you can communicate well and work efficiently together with other people. Still another one is that you abuse your social skills to make your coauthors do most of the work.
So "How do you publish 10 papers a year?" is an honest question, and "I work hard" is an evasive answer, which might lead to a negative reaction. However, having been in several hiring committees I am pretty sure that envy hardly ever plays a role here. I want the best possible colleagues, unless they are so good that working with me is not a serious option for them. And that is probably not really correlated to quality, but rather to selfishness and social incompetence.

Yep "evasive" is the key word here. How on earth are you 4-5 times more productive than all of your peers? If it really is "I'm just that smart" then good for you. I doubt it though, not because I doubt that you might be very smart, but because that alone can't explain your over-productiveness. The day has only so many hours and a human has to sleep at some point. You'll surely get a better attitude from your peers if you gave them an honest answer.

The important thing to recognise here is that they're comparing you to the norm (i.e. themselves). Asking "why do you do so much, relatively?" is equivalent to asking "why do you do so much more than me", and to "why do I do so little, relatively?". Consider your answers in this light.
You may have felt that saying "I work hard" is a modest answer to the question, but it really isn't. Almost anyone can "work hard", it's perceived almost as a moral choice. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but hard work is a virtue and you're saying you possess much more of it than they do. The janitor works hard, and it doesn't seem to have done his publication record any good, so your answer lacks insight. Which is not unexpected in a three-word answer ;-)
Imagine if someone asked Terence Tao "how come you've published so much, achieved so highly, and won the Fields medal?", and he said "the only reason is that I work harder than you do". No, it's not only because of that, it's also (indeed as a prerequisite) because he's way better than me at what he does. That was true before he put in the hours and the effort. There are people who've put in just as much hard work as he has and achieved less (albeit, I'm not one of them). So for him to claim that the only difference between himself and me is that I work less hard would be an insult. I can accept that he works harder, but I cannot accept that the only reason I'm not a Fields medallist is lack of effort on my part, and it's rude to tell me that it is. If he's going to pick one reason then I would far rather he picked "because I find mathematics much, much easier than you do". But, for what it's worth, here's what Terence Tao actually says instead of saying "I work hard".
Now, your colleagues might not be ready to admit that you're smarter than them (indeed, you might not be, there might be some other reasons), so you're right to be cautious about claims to your own ability. But avoiding a claim to your own ability by making a claim to your own virtue isn't helping matters.
If your colleagues genuinely want an answer to their question, because they're half-wondering whether you have some silver bullet that they could benefit from, then you need to look more closely at yourself and find more detailed answers. As others have said, it's just not plausible that you do 4-13 times as many hours a week of work than any of them does (although, with different teaching commitments and working hours and focus levels it's certainly plausible that you do 4+ times as many hours a week of proper research work than some of them). Find what else.
This isn't necessarily easy, because you don't know why they only produce 1-3 papers a year, but try to figure that out. These people will be open to the possibility that you're better than they are, but they can't believe it's just that you do 4+ times as much work, and if there's anything else you do that they could in theory do too then they want to know about it. For example, if you've found some way to avoid "overheads" that cut into everyone else's research time, then perhaps you think to yourself, "I'm just concentrating more on my work then them, i.e. working harder". But you can do better than that, you can help them remove some of the barriers to them working harder on their research in the hours available.
If, after a full investigation, you literally cannot find any reason other than hard work, then you might just have to say, "I've thought seriously about this, the typical postdoc in this department after all overheads and distractions and everything, only actually manages to sit down to about 20 hours of concentrated work on their research a week. I'm incredibly unusual, I seem to have more stamina than most and more ways of avoiding the rest of the world, and I manage to sit down to 80 hours of uninterrupted research work a week. That's why I do 4 times as much research as the average". That's a much more satisfactory answer, for them, than "I work harder".
If your colleagues are just looking to diminish your achievements due to their own insecurities, then as you've identified they want to come away with some conclusion like, "his papers aren't high quality", "his co-authors do all the work", "he's struck a rich, easy vein of work and is rattling through it spinning off a paper for every result". You have no obligation to pander to this nonsense, but for your own sake don't compound it by implying that they could do the same as you just by working harder. You could perhaps prepare some genuinely modest answer, in the hope of achieving the best case outcome, which is that they come away thinking, "well, he's a nice chap, and he made me feel good about myself, lucky for him he's getting so many papers out of his work". I can't give you one, though, because it has to relate to your actual work processes as compared with theirs, and it has to convince them that they aren't doing anything wrong, so that they can feel secure in their work. It could perhaps start from, "what can I say, editors seem to really like what I'm doing, I think perhaps it's because X, and I can polish off the papers really quickly because Y". When mollifying the insecure, make yourself sound blessed, don't make yourself sound like you somehow earned and deserve 4-13 times the public recognition they're getting.
Hiring panels want you to be excellent and work for them, so your approach to those can be completely different. It's not a necessary politeness to be modest at interview. If they ask a question like this then their fear is that you've produced 10-13 mediocre papers per year but nothing great, in which case they wouldn't want to hire you. They want you to allay this fear. You need to justify to them the value of your work, so that they're confident that you've produced the 1-3 solid papers they expect, and more. You need to justify it in more detail than "well, a top tier journal accepted it", or "I have a high citation count", which means talking qualitatively about your impact on your field and on the work of others. You also may need to convince them that you somewhat understand your own process and success, because they're running a department of interacting individuals, not a paper-factory. If they're going to hire you for tenure-track then they want to know that you'll benefit the department, as well as generating research. They won't turn you down for producing too much high-quality work, but they might turn you down if they think the good work you're doing would be more than cancelled out by the negative effect on department morale of you going around telling everyone the secret to success is to put the effort in.

I doubt Terry Tao has to justify his productivity.  If people ask him, it's because they want to know his secrets.

@Kimball: I picked him as an example because he's absurdly productive in terms of published papers, and because he's interested in the process of how mathematics is done. You're right of course that he's well past any risk of people putting him on the spot to justify himself, but nevertheless I expect he can do a much better job of explaining high productivity than either I or the questioner can :-)

Is there any better ways to explain 'overproductivity' to peers, in a non-offending way, how I publish more (and good quality) papers than the average in my field?

First, put some thought into where their reactions are coming from. Is it genuine curiosity?  Is it envy?  Is it a form of cultural sanction, e.g. to let you know that you "are making waves" in the culture? As intellectually smart as academic people are, many are not very emotionally intelligent, and thus lack self-awareness and self-control when they feel negative reactions.
Second, I suggest that you put together a set of answers that follow this statement: "I am fully aware that this is much higher than normal.  There are trade-offs involved, for sure, but this strategy fits my goals and capabilities. I have made specific choices to make this possible."  Then go on to explain the choices you have made if it makes serves your needs with that questioner.  Maybe you start every project with the plan of publishing multiple papers in multiple venues.  Maybe you "modularize" your work so it can be packaged in multiple ways.  Maybe you have many collaborations going at the same time.  Maybe you work longer hours in a typical week, or you work when other people are typically taking vacation or doing other things.  Maybe you are particularly efficient at the paper writing process.  Maybe you chose publication venues that have a quick acceptance cycle, without long revise-and-resubmit cycles.  Maybe you have a supervisor who is particularly productive and guides you (inspires you, directs you) to do likewise.  Maybe you are careful to choose problems and topics that are well suited to "minimum publishable unit" approaches.  And so on.
This type of answer may or may not meet the real needs or motivations of the questioner, but at least you have answered clearly and directly.

Your answer here reminds me of an oft-used phrase: marketing is everything. The O.P. insists on answering with "hard work," which can be misconstrued to mean "I work harder than you do." It would behoove the O.P. to find another way to say the same thing in a more palatable way, such as, "I don't have a lot of outside commitments, so I'm able to put more time into writing." Or perhaps an answer that's a bit self-deprecating would do the trick, such as: "I know! If I had a life, I wouldn't be able to write so many papers." Hopefully, such responses would be perceived as less condescending.

As mentioned in other answers, simple hard work does not explain the large number of publications.  I think that the main factors that explain wide variation in number of papers in general are

The type of problems worked on.  If you need to build a theory or develop techniques to solve a problem versus apply known theories/techniques, the amount of time required varies greatly.
The type of papers written.  This is highly connected with the first point, but generally 4 page papers take less time than 150 page manuscripts.  Also, many computational projects take less time than more theoretical ones.

From only seeing your number of papers (and maybe what journals they appear in), some people will be really impressed, and some people will be suspicious at first that you're not doing anything important/deep.  Of course, there are many mathematicians who publish a lot who are very well regarded (e.g., Noga Alon, Benny Sudakov).
Applied math is a huge, disparate area, and there is a lot of variation for what is a "normal" publication rate.  Is 1-3/year really what is normal for your collaborators and/or strong researchers who do similar kinds of things you do?  This is what you should be comparing yourself to, rather than all of applied math.  If you can say something like: In my subfield of XXX, 5-15 papers a year is pretty typical, then most people won't think it so strange.  It's even better if you can back it up with reasons related to 1. and 2., such as because we have a few techniques that we can apply to a lot of problems in different areas.
When it comes to the job search, people from other areas/subfields looking at your application often won't have a good sense of what's normal versus spectacular versus below average in terms of publication records, because, as I said before, things vary wildly.  Here what is really important is your letters of recommendation.  They will clarify whether you are great, good or mediocre at what you do.

I suggest you offer a self-deprecatory answer. Your answer of "I work hard" suggests that you feel you work harder than your peers. That might even be the case. If so, you probably spend far less of your day on non-work related activities. If you just want a way to answer without inciting envy or sounding like you're too full of yourself, try:

- How do you publish so many papers a year?
- Easy, I have no life.

This has the benefit of i) being self-deprecatory instead of tooting your own horn; ii) being a light and jokular answer; iii) suggesting that there's a trade-off, you loose something for what you gain in output.
I don't care if you're Feynman himself, stating that you work harder/better than your peers will never be well received, even if it's true. In fact, the truer it is, the likelier that people will take offense at it. So, instead of answering along the lines of "I'm better than you", give an answer that highlights that you're losing out on something.

You say that "1-3 papers a year is considered a good publication rate". This seems to imply that any researcher who manages such a publication rate is considered to be hard-working. In any case, most people consider themselves to be hard-working. It is therefore not surprising that your colleagues aren't satisified with "I work hard" as an explanation for your unusually high publication rate, or that they might interpret this statement as actually implying "I work much harder than the average".
Unless you actually do consider yourself smarter than your colleagues, and that that is the main reason for your superior productivity, I don't think it's impossible to give a simultaneously honest and non-controversial answer to why you have an above-average productivity. But first you need to really understand the reason yourself: Are your papers generally shorter than average? Is your particular research area more "fertile" than average? Do you put in a lot of overtime? Are you more efficient than average during the hours that you work? (Of course, this is the potentially controversial option.) If so, why?
When thinking about what to answer, don't sacrifice honesty for humility. Anyone who expects you to do that shouldn't have asked a question for which they couldn't deal with the answer. (But if the only conclusion you can think of is that you simply must be a smarter researcher, it is perhaps best to lay low.)

I think your answer (and many other peoples') are caught up in a form-of-the-good type analysis (which leads to skittishness), with a particular good in academia. Can't someone's research be a form of creative expression? I guess it depends how highly one thinks of their station within the academy (above, in, or below the milieu).

While I think that Steve Jessop above has already fully answered this question, there is one thing that he just barely skimmed over that I think is worth highlighting: Tall Poppy Syndrome.
In an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue, but unfortunately even in academia, humans are humans, and some people will always feel the need to cut down others to make themselves look higher.
Remember that the better you are doing and the more papers you publish, the worse your colleagues look by comparison - and this doesn't just apply to people looking at themselves. Others in your field may also be facing questions, such as "why do you publish so little?" or "if he can do it, why can't you?" I don't know what your exact circumstances are, but if others are being pressured to step up their output to match yours, they may be feeling frustrated, and blaming you for their additional workload.
As annoying as it may be to have your peers asking you "how do you do so well", I assure you it is ten times as bad when your boss asks you "why are you doing so badly".

I have run into a similar situation when working at labs that are a few years old (being new) or just not attracting researchers from 'good' schools.  To me, this is relevant for two reasons, much of the productiveness (at least early in the career) is based on training of how to be productive.  Second, established schools and labs have usually worked through many of the typical hurtles in documentation and practices, having experience in this can help someone in a new/upcoming lab more quickly adapt and become productive.
I mention this to make a point, as others have, there are many reasons why you can be more productive than others, unrelated to harder work than others.  I would consider it more about productive work than hard work, as the latter seems to instigate issues (as the answers have pointed out).  Hard work also narrows you into the comparison many have pointed out, whereas productive can lead to many things, which you should identify for yourself.
Now, my experience has been, even if you think people are jealous (may or not be true), skeptical, etc., using some humor can alleviate tension.  My default explanation is with a chuckle, saying:

Yea I've just been getting a lot done these days, which is easy since I
  have no friends and don't go out.

In my own life, this has worked out well, since people asking are not likely to be friends that I hang out with, and personally, I do not go out much and like to work, so when people meet my SO, it naturally comes out in conversation that I am always working and how it strains the relationship.
In essence, I would say pointing out, similar to how JakeBeal describes it, you may be productive in one aspect, but not in others, and using humor about your own life is a good way to calm tension.

To deal with your colleagues: You already tried the nice way, when asked, just smile/laugh and change the subject. Based on your description, it doesn't seem like they'll be convinced of any answer you give. Rather, it seems like you're in a toxic working environment and relationship-atrophy is already setting in. Just remain cordial, and let it go. Thankfully, it doesn't seem like you'll be sticking around for too long since you're bringing up the topic of a job-search.
The only other way I've ever dealt with a negative opinion due to over-achieving is to work very closely with those that criticize. This requires that they be non-malicious individuals; otherwise, you're in for a very unpleasant set period of time. Basically, proof through action rather than words.
Concerning 'choosing your words carefully': It seems like you already picked up on how you may be misinterpreted (i.e. I work hard = you're not), you should also avoid the 'why don't you do so and so', I've been told very recently that the malicious individual behaves in a passive-aggressive way towards you because they believe that they cannot, so your statement serves to enrage rather than win them over; true or not, better play it safe and avoid this one as well.
To deal with your interviews/job-search: Add a column to your publications list showing the ranking of the conference/journal you submitted the paper to. If they're all high tier then, if anything, your rate should help you land a pretty solid job. You may also want to add a line below the publication outlining exactly what your part was in the research that led to the publication to avoid the co-authors argument.
Best of luck with all your endeavors.

Great answer! +1 for 'work very closely with those that criticize.'.  However, about the job-search. In the first stage of applications when applications are mostly judged using CV/cover letter/research statement etc., it seems very difficult to go away from someone who thinks 'it may also be the case that the O.P. has recently broken through into a new area of low-hanging fruit, or is very good at collaborating.' as @jakebeal mentioned in his\her comments.

If you're going to be interviewed for an academic position then the person interviewing you should be aware of the field and they'll know if you were in fact researching in a new domain and if you really were picking the low hanging fruit. - If you're being interviewed by industry; if the interviewer is highly technical then the same applies, otherwise, they won't care about your papers.

But the preliminary search is not necessarily done by experts in the applicant's area, is it?

@John the point of your research statement is to convince people about your research. You are correct that describing your productivity as due to your "hardwork" will likely get your application looked at negatively.

Not necessarily. I've seen highly technical and non-technical HR head-hunters and managers, but only technical professors; here my previous comment still applies. I think you're worrying a little too much. Please keep in mind that a lot is taken into account and a lot of compromises are made when you're talking about getting a job. Your language skills, if there are any other applicants worth considering, equal-opp., etc. Ward off the basic arguments efficiently, i.e. the conf tier and co-author args, and strive on. Time is often wasted when we obsess on things that are outside of our control.

@H BSKan, that's nice answer for sure:) However, my fear is not completely obscure - see for example the comments below my question!

I understand, I'm not saying it's not warranted. It just seems like you want some secret key that would convince anyone of your point of view. I'm not sure one exists, or that I may be able to supply it. You could try several mechanisms like the ones StrongBad and I described, and then beyond that, it's out of your hands, and up to them to believe it or not. Now get back to work, you've got papers to publish ;) Good luck!

Assuming that the papers are really strong and the best you can give (i.e. your high productivity does not trade off against the potential even higher quality research): having had the luck to meet quite some fantastically brilliant people in my career, it is clear to me that hard work may be a necessary, but is far from a sufficient condition for high-quality productivity in a difficult field.
If you belong to this class of people that pick just the right approach, just the right question, just the right set of methods and have a knack for actually finding the low-hanging fruits (if indeed they are), good on you!
However, this means that "hard work" is simply not the appropriate response, other people may be working very hard, too. So this statement sends the message that you refuse to tell them your secret of success. This is perfectly in your right, and they are actually quite shamelessly "invading your territory" by asking you how you do it. Nevertheless, it may be advisable to apply some diplomacy to alleviate this; lower your profile, statements such as "I got lucky" or "I had a good run", or, as mentioned earlier, humour, for instance, to create a screen to seemingly decouple the success from you. Obviously, you shouldn't say that when you interview for a position or report to your boss, but such a strategy may take the sting of the interaction with your equal-status colleagues.
Frankly, your colleagues can find themselves lucky to have such a brilliant co-scientist. This reflects on the whole department. However, unfortunately, it may also endanger the career of some of them in very competitive environments and so you may be a realistic existential danger to them - but don't take it personally. This is not your fault and you should not be tempted to reduce your productivity/quality just to be likeable! Just don't rub your success (and certainly not "hard work") under their noses.
And make sure to demonstrate in your CV that the quality of your output is not  trading off against output quantity.
Finally, concerning your worry about hiring committees: I have heard about cases of first-rate people being rejected in interviews because of the reason that they were effectively too good (this is a real case, I am intentionally not using the original phrasing here). You probably don't want to be hired by these departments, anyway. Always remember: first-rate department heads hire first-rate people, second-rate department heads hire third-rate people.

There are many reasons why one person could, even with "hard work" and talent held constant, be more or less productive. When someone asks you, "how are you so productive," and your answer is only "hard work," it shows you have either not thought deeply about these issues, or you are intentionally being insulting.
Many of those issues have already been mentioned, but here's some more:

 - Typical turnaround times of journals
 - Degree of experimental/other outside data input required
 - Amount of advisor pickiness. [Some submit on the first draft, others more the 25th].
 - Subfield standards for advancement of the field - does your subfield publish papers that are more "Here's the same statistical model, but applied to a different dataset?" or "Here's a model, and an argument for comparison of different models, and detailed convergence analysis, and proof of accuracy in case X, and ...
 - Fraction of work done for authorship on a project. Sometimes 2nd author = "sat in meetings," sometimes 2nd author = "Wrote half of the code and paper."

This is not just sour grapes or the Tall Poppy syndrome. I am on the high end of productivity in my field, but I am aware that I have many of these features on my side. I know many people who are hard workers and just as talented as I am, who do not publish as much, because they have made different choices about what is most important in their papers or have rate-limiting steps that do not apply to me. It is unlikely that you are not also benefiting from similar factors. This isn't necessarily bad! But the more self-awareness you develop about how you benefit from this sort of variance, the easier it will be to talk with people about your productivity.

Very good. A "grown-up" answer, rather than seeming to need to relate to "adolescent" conceptions of the point of trying to advance human understanding ... :)


text:
Where does the money earned by universities in the USA from sports activities go?
In the USA, professional sports is big at many universities. Many, if not all, get a lot of money from such events (e.g., broadcasting rights to ESPN, or from different sportsware/equipment companies for brand endorsements, etc.). Does any of this money go to educational and research activities of the university? Or only sports department of the university utilizes it, e.g., in paying the coach and other staff?
Edit: I know that the above question is related to this question: American universities - where does all the money go? in some sense but mine is narrower.

Related: Why do American colleges and universities have sports teams?

My appraisal of the "men's athletic department" at my R1 vaguely-paid-for-by-the-state university is that it is a sort of closed system, and only very slightly interacts with any genuine education or research. The point is that the "alumni" with money to give are ... apparently, historically, ... bigger fans of men's sports than of education, research, scholarship, ... "whatevs".

Paul Garrett's comment matches my impression of what happens at my university. The only connection that I see between the athletic budget and education is that the athletic budget pays for some tutoring of athletes.  I once taught a class that had two varsity hockey players in it, and I got a few calls (this was before email existed) from the athletic department asking to be notified if these guys were having difficulty in my class.

Revised answer:  At my university, where football is big, the athletics department supports itself, and that some of the money goes back to the university, but the only specific instances I know of are donations to the art museum and history of science collection.
That said, I am sure most of revenue generated stays within athletics.
For instance, this article talks about the most profitable football programs, and out of Alabama's $110 million revenue in 2013, $6.5 million (5.9%) went back to "academic programming."  However, the details of how that money got used, and how much actually went back athletics (via athletic scholarships) is unclear.  In any case, this is a small amount of the university operating budget.  Florida that year gave the most back to academic programming $7.2 million, but the general and educational expenses were $524 million.
However, most universities lose money on athletics (see, e.g., this and this).  These universities make up for this by doing things like charging students fees for the athletics program and cutting funds to other programs/units.  Even some of the ones which are termed profitable get large subsidies (e.g., student fees)--only 7/230 Division I athletics programs did not take subsidies last year .  These articles say that even the donations athletics help generate goes back to athletics and that a relatively small amount of the athletics costs (about 16%) goes to student aid.

But what about the leftover money after paying all staff and services. I am talking about the universities which gain money from sports (as opposed to lose). Do they use it for education/research at all?

@John There are really very few of these universities, especially when you take into account subsidies.  It seems a small amount goes back to directly to education/research (not counting student athlete scholarships, which are often not as "academic" as they are made out to be) for these schools, though I think a lot of this is soft money and hard to trace.  Anyway, I updated my answer with some new info I found.