Do excessively large numbers of co-authors on a single paper signify a collaborative effort towards achieving exceptional quality, or are they indicative of a growing emphasis on quantity and academic visibility in research?
.
A notable example for discussion could be the 2015 paper "Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger" by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, which lists over 1,000 authors. This paper raises questions about the balance between genuine collaborative contributions and the trend of extensive co-authorship in large-scale projects. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
Also, "Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC" which has over 2,000 authors.
.
To the best of my knowledge, this question challenges the research community to reflect on the motivations and implications behind such practices, addressing issues of merit, fairness, and the integrity of scientific contributions. Let's have a scientific discussion for the eclectics...
.
#KexScience
Dear Kshitiz Kandel , it is an important issue that you have raised. I have taken part in some related discussions. I hope that this discussions and many good answers, replies, resources... will be helpful to you and your research.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_number_of_coauthors_on_an_academic_paper_is_too_many_authors
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Increase_in_numbers_of_authors_and_the_problem_of_honorary_authorship
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_all_Authors_Author
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ghost_author_would_be_the_worst_authorship_irregularity
https://www.researchgate.net/post/View_of_papers_with_multiple_co-first_authors
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_is_a_REAL-AUTHOR_in_scientific_article
Author lists on papers have ballooned, and it’s getting hard to discern contribution...
"The concern around long lists of authors might be traced back to 2001, when the term “hyperauthorship” is thought to have been coined by information scientist Blaise Cronin...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.1097
Do numerous co-authors on a paper reflect genuine collaboration for quality? A challenging but interesting question. Dear Prof. Ljubomir Jacić raised a good point. To me, not necessarily.
Regards,
AM
Ljubomir Jacić Aristidis Matsoukis Thank you so much for this wonderful information and genuine discussion! Lately, I am checking some research work/academic articles based on bigger pictures/bigger collaboration and work like this are praiseworthy! One of the work from my colleagues and the team of international expertise, you can dwell comprehensively and enjoy at your time! "The Sikkim flood of October 2023: Drivers, causes and impacts of a multihazard cascade". DOI:10.1126/science.ads2659
Do numerous co-authors on a paper reflect a pursuit of quantity and visibility? Yes, that may be true in many cases.
Academic practitioner collaborations can tackle persistent knowledge inequalities, but they need recognition
Why do academics engage in practitioner collaborations and how does this shape their research and its wider impact? Armine Ishkanian assesses the impact of a major academic practitioner project and suggests greater recognition is needed for the different types of knowledge and outcomes they produce...
"Assumptions about the value of academic-practitioner collaborations, include that research produced in this manner can lead to more effective and impactful research outputs that help inform policy and practice. Collaborations can help to make research less extractive and also lead to the recognition of the value of different forms of knowledge (e.g., experiential), thus addressing persistent knowledge hierarchies. But, not everyone agrees. Critics argue that research produced through collaboration involves a trade-off between relevance and rigour and that it produces research that lacks objectivity and is influenced by “ideology, philosophy, myth, bias, beliefs and ‘group think’”...
Research collaborations aimed at developing solutions-oriented research are not yet widely incentivised or rewarded in academia. Some scholars argue that what is considered “proper” research and what counts as “scientific knowledge” has not greatly shifted over the past three decades. The experience of the research collaborations in our study confirms this view and highlights how some researchers continue to perceive this work as a trade-off between relevance and rigour or between ‘objective’ research and doing research that is politically motivated..."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/03/06/academic-practitioner-collaborations-can-tackle-persistent-knowledge-inequalities-but-they-need-recognition/
Ljubomir Jacić Summing up your insight into bullets:
Benefits of Academic-Practitioner Collaborations: Such collaborations can lead to more effective and impactful research, helping to inform policy and practice. They also make research less extractive and promote the recognition of experiential knowledge, addressing persistent knowledge hierarchies.
Challenges and Criticisms: Some critics argue that these collaborations compromise research objectivity, as they involve a trade-off between relevance and rigour. They claim that research produced in this manner is influenced by ideology, philosophy, and bias.
Lack of Institutional Incentives: Solution-oriented research collaborations are not widely incentivized in academia. Many scholars believe that traditional definitions of "proper" research and "scientific knowledge" have remained unchanged for decades, making it difficult to gain recognition for collaborative research.
I agree with you Professor!
Crediting non-author contributors in scientific publishing
"Scientific publications often benefit from diverse contributions that go uncredited owing to a lack of guidelines for recognizing non-author contributors. We propose ‘extended research credits’ (ERC) — a standardized, tiered system (modelled after the attribution style of the film industry) to highlight hidden labour in research...
Although this proposal expands the criteria for credits, it poses the risk of being misused to justify reducing credit for potential authors. To mitigate this, lead researchers — and indeed external reviewers and journal editors — should use ERCs to identify individuals who might warrant coauthorship and encourage their inclusion at that level, as long as they meet other authorship criteria..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02123-7
"Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research"
.
Authorship should acknowledge and reward those deserving of such credit. Moreover, being an author on a paper also means that one assumes ownership of the content. Journals are increasingly requiring author roles to be specified at time of submission using schemes such as the contributor roles taxonomy (CRediT) system, which relies on 14 different roles. Yet, there are many other aspects of research that are not adequately captured by the list of roles, particularly in applied environmental disciplines such as conservation science, environmental science and applied ecology. The growing recognition that authorship should reflect contributions that extend beyond the usual data collection, analysis and writing provides the ideal backdrop for rethinking contributions in conservation science. Here we propose a more inclusive approach to authorship that recognizes and values diverse contributions and contributors using an expanded list of CRediT roles.
Rival scientists are teaming up to break scientific stalemates
Working with adversaries helps researchers test the strength of their work by bringing in critics from the start...
" Adversarial research collaborations are projects in which two (or more) teams with opposing theories, hypotheses, or interpretations of evidence get together to hammer out a mutually acceptable research study that will—ideally—reconcile their differences. Though adversarial collaborations were first developed decades ago, they’re still fairly uncommon, often stymied by the extra time, effort, and interpersonal savvy needed to pull them off.
But advocates say these projects are not as scary as they seem. Dueling researchers often end up friendlier than they were when they started, and they typically resolve hot-button scientific controversies much faster than by ping-ponging combative journal articles at each other for years or decades...
Journals and funders could do more to encourage adversarial collaborations, Ceci said. Journals could commission more adversarial papers or offer guaranteed acceptance to preregistered adversarial collaborations. Funders could offer bonuses on grants for principal investigators willing to team up with rivals, funding multi-lab efforts to do adversarial work.
“We should incentivize this,” Ceci said. “We should say, ‘It’s really great that you refuted your decade-long position; that’s admirable.’ We should reward people for being willing to risk their long-established conclusions.”"
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/04-05/adversarial-research-collaboration
The value of co-authorship must be recognised outside the sciences
In an era of complex challenges, single authorship is no longer the only marker of significant contributions...
"Studies have shown that collaboration and interdisciplinarity frequently result in higher-quality publications and broader intellectual and societal impact. Teamworking also contributes to a more inclusive research culture in which scholars – in particular, early-career researchers – are valued and evaluated in just ways...
As long as it is undertaken ethically, collaborative research and writing must be encouraged and promoted. As the world becomes ever more complicated and fractious, we must collectively dismantle the barriers to novel modes of researching and writing that impactfully address society’s most pressing problems."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/value-co-authorship-must-be-recognised-outside-sciences
Does collaboration outside academia lead to greater scientific impact?
Collaborations between researchers and non-academic partners are increasingly encouraged, but do they truly enhance scientific impact? Drawing on survey data from Spanish scientists, show that joint research projects are associated with higher citation impact, especially for scientists with strong academic reputations...
"Given the evidence, one might wonder, how can we maximise the benefits of academic engagement? One approach is for funding bodies to provide more targeted grants that support long-term collaborations between academic and non-academic partners. Universities can also play a role by investing in capacity-building, networking events, and mentorship programmes – especially for early-career researchers. By fostering structured support, institutions can ensure that all researchers – not just the most experienced ones – reap the rewards of engagement outside academia. Ultimately, while reaching across sectors presents its challenges, our study highlights its potential to enhance not just research productivity but also the production of cutting-edge research. It is the promise of groundbreaking, high-impact advances that makes engagement beyond academia a particularly valuable investment for scientists and society alike."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/06/05/does-collaboration-outside-academia-lead-to-greater-scientific-impact/
Ljubomir Jacić To sum up, collaborations between researchers and non-academic partners boost scientific impact, especially for well-established scientists, as shown by Spanish survey data. To maximize these benefits, targeted funding, institutional support, and mentorship for early-career researchers are essential. Such engagement not only improves research productivity but also drives high-impact, innovative discoveries valuable to both science and society.
One critical aspect during research publication, particularly in the low-income, developing countries is funding for APF or publishing charge, which is almost impossible, if the target is in high impact-tiers. In such circumstances, some external bodies may facilitate with external funding. The biggest scientific dilemma arises here, whether to publish in high impact journal sharing the co-authorship, provided the external funding or just target the journals with discount/publish in any of the journals which accept your article? let's have a genuine discussion?
Why it’s important to know who did what in a research paper
"In today’s world, scientific breakthroughs are rarely the product of a single mind. Instead, they emerge from the collective efforts of diverse teams working together in labs, universities and research centres, and through virtual collaborations across the globe. A century ago, when the Institute of Physics published its first papers, scientific manuscripts often featured just one or two authors. Now, it’s common to see 30 names on a single article, each contributing a unique expertise to solve complex problems. This shift reflects not only the increased volume of research but also the intricate nature of modern science and the broad range of skills it demands...
Information scientist Blaise Cronin coined the term ‘hyperauthorship’ in 2001 to describe papers with 100 or more authors. A well-known example is the discovery of the Higgs boson, which involved papers with thousands of contributors from CERN and beyond. While this is an example of a legitimate large collaboration, there are instances where authorship has been obtained improperly or where the definition of authorship has been stretched...
Additionally, the way names are ordered varies wildly between disciplines, making it hard to understand each person’s role or level of contribution. This inconsistency can obscure the recognition of crucial work done, especially for those at the beginning of their careers. As research becomes more specialised, the need for clarity around who does what has grown increasingly urgent. Historically, contribution statements have often been buried in acknowledgements or written in free form that lacks standardisation. This lack of consistency is also a barrier to improving transparency and building trust in science...
There is a solution. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy, also known as CRediT..."
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250701152810583&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=COMMNL8042
Quite an interesting perspective on "hyperauthorship". BTW, are there specific conditions/criterions on coining a term?
Kshitiz Kandel , regarding hyperauthorship, try to find full text of this article for more info about this term. I do not have access any more.
Hyperauthorship: the publishing challenges for ‘big team’ science
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00575-3
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology