In my circumstances, collaboration will improve my research potential.  There is never an exactly equal distribution of labor, but if intellectual contribution has been provided, I am willing to do most of the work.  It was my good friend (P in Iran), who told me that however talented, many journals will reject my papers.  I have reason to believe her, especially since my college forbids me to pay to publish.  But if I collaborate with others, that is no longer an issue.

In my circumstances, collaboration will improve my research potential.  There is never an exactly equal distribution of labor, but if intellectual contribution has been provided, I am willing to do most of the work.  It was my good friend (P in Iran), who told me that however talented, many journals will reject my papers.  I have reason to believe her, especially since my college forbids me to pay to publish.  But if I collaborate with others, that is no longer an issue.

Dear @Abhijit, thanks for sharing the question.

"As more competition and more collaboration in research are demanded simultaneously, there is a need for in-depth analysis of the relation between the two, and of their effects on the quality of science and higher education. The tension between the individual reputation-based incentives and the systems’ need for more direct collaboration has implications for research management and science policy..." This is fine editorial about the issue you have raised!

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/journal/v25/n3/full/hep201216a.html

Dear Abhijit.

Quite interesting to discuss. Thank you.

My personal belief is that BOTH collaboration and competition are intricate part of a researcher's world. You have to learn how to cope with both.

Modern scientific research is made of team work. (hence collaboration is fundamental).

Things work better, in terms of financial funding,  if you belong to an institution (hence competitiveness is also inevitable, and you have to cope with it, as it also helps you improve your work...)

Among the two- collaboration or competition- which one will improve your research potential?

I think both competition and collaboration can improve my research potential.  Competition enables me to see where are my strengths that I can bring out in research if I have to do it alone.  Collaboration (if allows) helps me address my weaknesses in research through working with others to complement my shortcomings.  Hence, competition + collaboration = co-opetition 

With the advent of multidisciplinary disciplines and researches in recent years, collaboration seems more appropriate (than competition) to boost our research potentials.

There are several reasons to cooperate today than ever before, where individual pursuit of knowledge was a norm and a tradition. The most leading factor is the interdisciplinary nature of scientific results and their applications, where one branch of science is deeply connected with another and therefore expertise of people from all these different fields is found useful and imperative. The other is for publication purposes as most of you have indicated, a paper will have more chance to be accepted if authored with several authors. The other reason is a broader understanding of the purposes of research in which competition alone makes less appealing. 

Today publication of results is changed from single authorship to multitudes. For instance the scientific paper that was announced from CERN was authored with several thousand people. This trend continues and becomes the norm of authorship in all fields, including mathematics where single authorship was mainly the tradition.

http://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567

We require both.

Both --- collaboration or competition --- which one will improve his/her research potential.

I use both!

Collaboration ---- gives synergy to research

Competition ---- forces one to excel in research.

Dear all

I also think both are improving force. Today competition is used everywhere. Sometimes collaborators are competitor or will be competitors tomorrow.

Hello Everyone

I feel Both Collaboration - now possible across the globe due to researchgate and other such platforms and ICTs - is very helpful. I am jointly editing a book with a researcher from a different part of the world.

Competition - a Healthy competition is required to explore the potential of the self and the thinking power of the brain.

So why not Competitive Collaboration or collaborative competition  

Dear all, 

Achieving our goals requires many times the use of  "collaborative technologies" ultimately transforming the way we  turn our knowledge into action. Collaboration platforms should do more than help and should create new ways for doing  things.

But  competitors makes us feel that we have others in the same field and to suceed we have to became even better ....

Have a ice time

Helena

Collaborations with good researchers and healthy competitions among peers will help you to progress in academic and research fields. But unnecessary and unhealthy competition spirit will be really harmful and will ruin your peace of mind and that will upset your progress.

Personally, I believe that Collaboration will improve your research potential. In, collaboration you have to come with a new idea regarding the specific experiments. Moreover, you have to sharpen your skills in the area. You can distribute the workload as well.

Competition is also good to encourage you to publish more quality work in the respective field of research.

Dear Mitra,

Collaboration is the best way to get the best output in any form. Currently, I am guided by 2 eminent professors on a research named Prof. Dr. Murali Viswanathan and Prof. Dr. Kuperan Viswanathan. The learning and the output with their collaboration are absolutely brilliant and is thought provoking. We will not get this learning and the good piece of work in competition.

Competition creates anxiety to win which in-turn yields you ego if you win and unpleasant if you loose. While collaboration bring you humbleness, learning from others, self-awareness and so on.

Hope this helps.

Regards.

Sekar Gopal.

Dear all

 The wisdom of a team exceeds that of the wisest individual. That is why we have to take collaboration. But how can we let the members in the team output their wisdom? The way is competition. At the same time, cut-throat competition is devil, it will ravage the team.

The combination of both the Colloboration and Competition:

Colloboration will bring people having varied abilities and strengths from across the globe together.

Competition will help in finding the better and the best way to deal with a research problem. Will enhance the thinking abilities and efforts. 

We grow more in both the circumstances. Even in Colloboration there is a certain underlying competitiveness. - That is why in an earlier answer I was speaking about Competitive Colloboration.

Totally agree with Vibha Sharma Ma'am. Most effective is  Competitive Colloboration or even Collaborative Competition.

Rather, a fine balance of the two is an effective strategy: collaboration with the like minded researchers and competition with the researchers following rival paradigm.

I think the cooperation and competition are necessary to build a real researcher who believe in their skills and qualities.