Some may say that they get a lot more done when they work on their own.
Others may prefer to contribute and share their skills and experience with co-authors.
@Mahfuz, I am the old fashioned researcher! If possible, I would like to conduct and do by myself. On the other side, when team work is needed, I prefer to be the first among equals, but it is not always possible!
It does depend on the research problem and for me it is such that I feel more comfortable working alone.
I always preferred to work with colleagues because of the many advantages that it provides. Sometimes I may also work independently for certain problems where I will have more control. However majority of my work involves a large amount of experimentation for which the help of students and colleagues helps a lot.
@Mahfuz, I am the old fashioned researcher! If possible, I would like to conduct and do by myself. On the other side, when team work is needed, I prefer to be the first among equals, but it is not always possible!
My dear colleagues, here is a nice book :"On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research"! It is a fine reading!
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12192&page=11
I think Ljubomir, it is a matter of preference. Working by yourself has advantages and disadvantages, which are different from a colleague to a colleague.
I believe the real science is a one man and only one man idea. Other is technological help to execute the idea, that is taken as a misunderstanding terms which are called colleagues, in fact they are helper.
Dear @Mahfuz, thank you for the self evaluation question; in spite that I am doing research since 27 years, I did not think of this question. I have more than 50 publications, either single, and, in few, first author, and in one publication the second. I just remember my supervisor who refused to put his name in a paper that is published in the prestigeous journal of PAMS and said "Nein das ist doch Ihre Arbeit".
What I realize now that I wanted all the time to do every thing by myself; this is perhaps part of my personality and I think it might be better to share research with others which I for sure do with my students.
Agree with all the above learned friends. Sometimes I go it alone and sometimes I work others. I think 80% of my research is a result of collaboration.
When I have a new idea or discover something interesting, I tend to explore it first by myself. If I can do enough work for a publication, I will do it myself. Before setting up a PhD project, I always carry out prelinimary research and I make sure that the work can be done by a reasonably intelligent and diligent student.
Nowadays lots of work must be in collaborations with other people. Engineering projects involve many parties and collaborations are suaully the norm. I imagine some mathematical research could be done single-handedly.
I think being able to do research independently and collective is a good attribute and actually how to do it depends on the particular situation.
It's a difficult answer ...
As I have my own rhythm, I prefer to work alone. But I must recognize that group work is more productive.
Any scientist should have his scientific environment, which might be a circle of colleagues, with whom you are discussing ideas, ask questions etc. Essentially you work alone, but if a discussion brings some new idea then you are going to have a collective research. An example was the great mathematician Grothendieck. If he needs to learn or ckear up something, he did not go to books but to his friend Serre. See also,
The Grothendieck-Serre Correspondence: http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~leila/corr.pdf
I have done both; but most of my researches were done alone. There was a lack of research collaboration culture at places where I have worked. During the past decade or so, I found some good co-authors; so I worked with them.
But I do believe, if you have competent and trustworthy co-authors to work with, you can produce far better results.
In Newton's days, there are so many discoveries to be made and secrets to be revealed, many scientists work alone. Nowadays, there are many multi-disciplinary work that requires collaborations with others.
My own philosophy is that if I need certain expertise in a piece of work I will first look for a collaborator who has it and I will learn it if I cannot. If then learning it takes too much effort I would give up the work. There is just no time for me to learn completely new expertise at my age and given the nature of my job.
I preferred to work with co-authors. All my research work except my PG thesis I worked with my colleagues and students. Specially when we conduct RCT with blinding process it wouldn't be possible to do alone. I feel it is always batter to work with co-authors...
I like working with others when they can have significant input or known share but I don't like the piggybacking practice (either way) in publishing, though it is very common nowadays and you can't escape it (either way) sometimes. Thanks. @AlDmour.
Two heads are better than one. It is always good to have a team you can work with who posses variant skills that enhances the work
I have written alone and also with co-authors. Both options have advantages and disadvantages. If you write alone, you are more in control: you will not have to wait until your co-authors finish something; also, you will decide alone what to add or remove or rewrite, so, there will be no arguments. If you write with co-authors, you can sometimes save time as e.g. they can collect or analyze data; also, sometimes you can find a co-author who can do something that you can't (e.g. can use some methods or has access to some data...).
Obviously with co-authors, b/c it helps to improve the research quality and makes discussion easy
On this issue I share the view of Nasser and others that it is better to work with a team in conducting an important research. Almost any type of research that is under implementation today, will cover different areas and for this reason you need to have a team compose by experts in different fields to carry out all activities associated to any specific research.
I have several papers and books with co-authors. I also have a permanent research assistant.
Nonetheless, I honestly feel more at ease working alone.The main reason is the pace depends on me.
Dear Mahfuz,
There are areas where one cannot work alone. In pure mathematics I believe that one should work mainly alone. When I was young I would like to work with a colleague on new subjects because in that way it would be easier to learn new things. Unfortunately the environment was not favorable at that time. After certain age I have changed my mind. I guess that one should be very selective if he decides to conduct a joint work with someone.
Dear Mahfuz. You have got very good responses. I also have written papers alone and with co-authors. The choice really depends on type of the article and i do not have a preference!.. Single author articles are a measure of independence and multiple author papers are a measure of teamwork.
I agree with Adel that it depends on a number of factors like topical interest, problem difficulty, outcome urgency, contribution, and smoothness of coordination.
Most of the times I prefer to work with colleagues and seniors because of the fact that team work always boost the quality of research. The mistake done at any point of time during the research work can be rectified by the fellow colleague and good work done is always appreciated by the team which use to act as an inspiration.
Mostly in theoretical research I prefer to work alone. In such endeavor possibly I need to understand one or a class of physical systems. Need to visualize the theoretical model at the required hierarchical level. Formulate and prove appropriate theorems etc. Working alone is a preferable alternative for this type of activities. However for practical research problems lot of works need to be done following a particular schedule. This needs many more man hour inputs and therefore can not be done alone. There are theoretical problems also that need such effort and therefore collaborative activity is necessary there.
Yes Anup. Practical research problems need lot of work, which means many more man hour inputs and therefore can not be done alone.
While we work in a group we get to learn from our co-authors. Many a times we find new avenues of research while we discuss with other researchers. Above all having a collaborative work helps in building a network and acquire knowledge.
I always prefer to work with my teammates for many advantages, save time and better results. TQ
I think a good mix is best. However, regardless what happens one should give credit when credit is due. It also depends on how complete one 's idea is. if the discovery of some result or topic cannot stand except with the additional external input, then in that case there is no alternative but to mention the extra but essential input. So I do not think it is a matter of preference as much as how things work towards ideas or projects one plans to work on. Regardless, It really bogs down to the character of each individual and the thinking autonomy or excitement they get when they are workin by themselves or with others
Furthermore, I think in one's particular area or areas, one must prove they can work alone on them, while for siubject matters that may be tangential or marginal to ones specific areas, Team work is the name of the game since it is the best way to learn and grow in the new area. Finally, when you reach a certain stage of notiriety, It is a times almost impossible to work alone, because you start have many obligations towrads leading and co-chairing research groups and teams. So there is a tendency to loose opportunity to spend time by yourself on your own ideas, because you get invited or asked to evaluate or contribute to others efforts. It is certainly a trap that faculty management systems atttempted to resolve by allaocating sabbaticals, and sorts of retreats.
There is a lot of unemployment. I therefore prefer to collaborate with others (social considerations).
Although I prefer to work with colleagues, it is usually a more challenging experience that require good project management, negotiation and communication skills. The best projects are the ones that are completed. Experience have taught me that it is better to have a team of competent and flexible peers than a team of highly competent but inflexible peers that never compromise. The first one usually finished the research project and the second may finish (but it takes more time and effort).
Research is a team effort, if some one says that he works alone, then it is not true. Every research requires a team from forming a problem statement to working out the detailed methodology, actually working on the problem, collecting reviews, data their analysis, and finally report writing, all this is difficult to do all alone and support is needed at every stage. If not then the quality of research would not be of optimal quality, I feel. Co-researchers contribute in improving the quality of work done so their contribution can not be denied in the final outcome.
To stimulate more discussion:
"Scientists are not isolated biology-based islands. Scientists might work had, but efficiency will ultimately depend on efforts from visible or invisible contributors in interaction networks, dependent or independent from science activity."
I don't think that a research can be done alone. Each research project or research field has in its side many facets than no researcher by his own could master even a senior and talented one. Even in theoretical science, may be modeling needs programers and discussions with colleagues to assess the idea. sometimes a research could be done by a single researcher if it needs compilation of works or a survey. However a successful research must be organized through competent and flexible teams.
As my professional field is multidisciplinary, I prefer working with co-authors researchers or associates and/or with students under supervision when i'm obliged to conduct alone the research.
Some research work could not possibly be done individually due to the complexity of the work. Also some research work is multidisciplinary and demands team work. I personally prefer team work not out of choice but out of necessity.
I like Marcel M. Lambrechts answers, they are different from all the others( including mine ) and simulating!
I agree with you Issam that some research work could not possibly be done individually due to the complexity of the work itself.
I agree with Mahfuz and Issam and the others. Given the fast evolutions in literature knowledge and techniques, how to deal with all this alone? Perhaps when you are extremely focused?
Anyway, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of single author publications, either because of the simplicity of the topics handled, or the personality profiles of the single authors, or what else?
I always prefer team work, although I like to do my research work alone, sometimes. But I like to discuss it with others and exchange new ideas and enjoy fruitful discussions.
It depends on certain circumstances of a certain research. But i prefer working alone if possible. If consider the question seriously, the goals and areas of a research define a team. And each team member must be a good communicator.
In the beginning when I was young , I also did research alone like @Ljubomir Jacić.
But later on, I teamed up and found it better because it is not possible to keep updating your knowledge in various fields of interest. Moreover, it is the era of convergence not only of technologies but also of knowledge. Therefore, a team work from experts of various disciplines gives better output as finds @Nageswara Rao Posinasetti, @K. M. Singh, @Fairouz Bettayeb, @Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani and @Reiner Creutzburg. I agree with them all.
Dear Mahfuz and you all,
In my opinion research work is usually a collective effort but publishing work is a little different.
Regardless of personal preference, it depends on type of research (or publication) involved and on the time to accomplish it.
Some publications need to be done on several because they are translating a collaborative research...in other cases (review) work quality is optimized by performing on several. Besides, I prefer working alone when it comes to produce a very personal... but as time goes and better I appreciate the collaborative work.
Regards.
Jean.
@all
Possibility of the conducting research alone or with co-authores depends on many factors:
1. discipline (is there current possibility to conduct alone serious research concerning nuclera physics? but of course in philosophy such occupation is reality),
2. size and longitude of research (you can provide up to 1000 measures alone, but more? what about inter-rater reliability?),
3. financing and its requirements (concerning e.g. interdisciplinary research, terms, specific conditions),
4. possibilities of co-operation: local co-operation may be difficult in narrow, rare specialties, but distant co-operation may be quite impossible),
5. methodology requirements: equipment, quality, etc.
6. need for critical assessment and objectivization,
7. need for brain storms increasing creativity :)
I agree with J. Perriot: I sometimes prefer to work alone too. But if you conduct research alone, you publish your results also alone.
There are too many factors involved when working together. Of course, it has its own advantages too. I prefer to work in a team, but most of the times, time management becomes difficult. Then working alone is preferable . As mentioned above brain storming, gettings different perspectives are better when working with colleagues. But similar interests are essential.
Sometimes a collaboration just happens and you feel nice to continue it!
Dear @Asmat, may be our friend Ljubomir has the personality of a chief. indeed when the idea of research is not shared or understood by a collaborative team, we need to work alone or be the first of the team as Ljubomir to guide the methodology and the idea purpose. Perhaps engineers have a pragmatic mentality and could rapidly built an engineering plan of knowledge, of the research project or idea. Anyway at a certain level of research one couldn't continue alone and needs collaboration through a good team work.
However I agree with @Emilia, many critical parameters are needed for a succceftul team
As per need coworkers must be considered, but the work which can be made by ourselves does not need any collaboration of coworkers. So simply do it with yourselves.
@Fairouz. It is the era of convergence or in simple words integration of knowledge and technologies from various fields. I generally agree with you that at a certain stage of research one couldn't continue alone and needs collaboration through a good team work. But want to add, especially when target dead line is too close.
At the same, it is not a thumb rule. Still people carry research individually like PhD students and many more. It is just a matter of available time, nature of research , it's breadth and of course the available financial resources etc.
At times, I think it depends on the nature of the problem, possibly your mood, and you communication disposition. Sometimes, involving more people can lead you astray, and the contrary can be true as well. So, it may depend on good will but a greater luck in choosing one situation over the other. There is usually an inner call that may keep asking you to examine various facets of the problem, and only if you face obstacles, then do you actually seek other's help, and others seek your help as well.
Dear Fethi. I agree that it may depend on good will but a greater luck in choosing one situation over the other.
Yes @Asmat, there are many independent researchers who do research by their self; Phd students are not independent researchers, they belong to a university under supervision of a professor who directs the work, so their work is not at 100% individual. they share their work with their supervisor and may be other students who are engaged in same topic. Into research institutions it is practically and logically impossible to do individual research. This do not limits the researcher competencies if (s)he is interested by special topics in what (s)he could conduct research independently from the institution's topics
@Fairouz., The fact is, researchers are usually too busy with multiple assignments. Therefore, they generally prefer to team up so that time could be spared for rest of the assignments, as well. I am not much convinced by your statement, "It is practically and logically impossible to do research individually". Every thing is possible, it is just matter of time.
The question reads "Do you prefer conducting research alone or with co-authors?" Those of us working as faculties in a university need to guide students for their Ph.D. work. This is part of our assignments and we do not have any choice to deny, therefore no question of choice comes in. However when we do some open ended research only then we can choose between the two forms. In research projects also mostly collective activity is necessary.
Some promotion systems put limits to conducting researches with other co-authors. This is for promotion purposes.
I have tasted the wonderful team spirit results both in research as well as publishing papers. Particularly papers get improved when all the authors works sincerely and acceptance rate becomes very high for such papers, since these are sieved and refined / defined at each step. Also many jobs are shared and thus time is saved and manpower or brains can be used in other works. If there are juniors associated the bet way is to pass good skills you have to them and in due course of time they would be efficient team members.
Agree with you @Asmat, that researchers are most time busy, a team work is necessary to save time and meet schedules.
I said that in research institutions, people are logically involved into the scientific program of the institution 'it is their job for what they are paid', so people couldn't conduct a project individually only if they are obliged by their employer (or may be marginalized). However any researcher could conduct individually and independently from the institution and on his funds some research on a specific topic of interest of him, this is possible ...; If he has sufficient time and money of course!
Co-authorship in a research publication is a myth. A senior person who is hierarchically your supervisor may expect inclusion of his name in all the research papers you get published. This may not have any relation to his contribution to the related research. If you deny you may not be allowed to work. All the necessary facilities will be made difficult to avail. This is not a very rare example.
Since in an academic institution publication plays a very important role during promotion one may have some very peculiar experience. Suppose you are working on a research problem, may be alone or may be with some one else. During an informal chat you may have informed about your problem to a different researcher. There are persons who will take this opportunity immediately and will pass one or two comments (may or may not be relevant) on the problem. He will then start expecting inclusion of his name as an author in the related publication.
"A senior person who is hierarchically your supervisor may expect inclusion of his name in all the research papers you get published. This may not have any relation to his contribution to the related research". I am quoting Anup. This is a really big problem, isn`t it?
You are welcome dear Asmat and thank you for your interests. Agree also with Anup, some senior researchers automatically expect their names in the publications of their subalterns even if they do not contribute by any mean or idea, since the number of publications becomes the only rate differentiating the popularity of researchers. Do researchers really need popularity or a "star system"?? I think science is a more serious challenge than any 'star system like'.
Publication is a mean of sharing with peers of ones contributions to science advance 'successful or not but always challenging'. A star system like through publication quotation could bring in the scientific community non scientists, businessmen, politicians, and may be some quasi ignorant, who are able to corrupt science, its products and their use.
Publication sharing should be with peers in accordance to their contribution to the research.Is it logical that the supervisor has the right to include her/his name in all the research papers of the student.
When I was younger I mostly worked alone or integrated in senior teams where my oppinions were not too much regarded. Presently, I do not want to follow the same line so I prefer to work with the teams I've trained hoping that they would be my Masters in the near future.
Cheers
Dear Joao. It was a good example for preferring to work with the teams you have trained.
I have seen articles that each has more than 20 authors. Many academic staff are desperate to have a quite number of publications for promotion purposes. What is the contribution of each researcher?
Convergence and information sharing and exchange are extremely important, but that doesn't mean making research together. I agree with Mahfuz that 10+ co-authors looks strange
We cannot put any maximum limit number for the co-authors, because this depends on the nature of the research.
What about the promotion system in your university. Does it assign the same weight for the main author and for co-authors?
Promotion systems in some universities give the first author 50% of the weight, the other author are given less and less weight.
@Mahfuz,
Rating system for articles in my country, (IRAN):
The papers are evaluated according to scientific values, (The 1st part of the attached table). This table is only about articles (for non-medical universities) and other research activities are not included. The approved scientific journal was identified by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT).
A slight modification occurs in rates according to the attitude of the evaluation team.
The 2nd part of the attachment shows the distribution of scores among the authors in a joint paper.
Thank you Raoof for the really valuable information we obtain, and for the distribution of scores among the authors in a joint paper.
In some universities in Jordan, the promotion system gives the same weight for every author of the research, whether the main or co-authors.
In many universities in the USA the same wieght is given to all authers.
Thank you for your answer Ruchi. I agree with you that its good to work in a team when research involves multiple co-authors as it involves new enthusiasm.... but yes everyone should play active role.
I worked with co-authors, and I would do it again. For me, working with friends is easier and more comfortable. What do you say, is it better for the co-author to be a friend of yours.
I prefer team work though independent research may come up.However there is a problem when it comes to promotion for multiple authors
Both have advantages, but collaboration often helps us looks at things from alternate perspectives, adds to cumulative knowledge acquisition, aids cross-fertilization, and makes us more adaptable.
The best approach would probably be a blended one, where individual and collaborative research work in a NGT (Nominal Group Technique) style. Individual time+space+effort followed by joint endeavours. That helps us clarify our own goals first and then combine forces more effectively.
Dear C.O. Adenipekun,
Thank you for your valuable answer. You stated that there is a problem when it comes to promotion for multiple authors. Would you kindly explain how and why please.
@ Monica. The best approach would probably be a blended one, where individual and collaborative research work in a NGT (Nominal Group Technique) style. Would you explain the idea of this group, especially the contribution of each author in the group.
Hello Dr. Judeh,
Sure. Nominal Group Technique is usually used as a more viable alternative to classical brainstorming, where members of a group/cohort take time to draw up ideas independently and then share it with the rest of the members, and may further modify and enhance their own ideas based on peer feedback. This is done to allow equal participation and to prevent the drawbacks of traditional brainstorming where contributions often get tilted, or imbalanced and may not provide sufficient time and scope to all members equitably.
I just extended this idea from brainstorming to actual research, with similar concerns and goals in mind. To allow individual research members to conceptualize their ideas, approaches, and preferences-- and once some kind of tangible approach has taken shape, to then collaborate with fellow research members and further strengthen and refine team goals and intended outcomes. This allows all members enough independence, space and time, and also prevents confusion and lack of clarity that stems from insufficient thought invested in the project. Insights and resources are combined when members feel more confident, self-directed and ready to adapt and refine.
Thanks for the great question!
Monica
Dear Monica, Thank you for the valuable information in elaborating in Nominal Group Technique.
Dear Hotniar.
In fact, i am not gathering data regarding researcher attitude on teamwork. It is just a question on the Researchgate to see different views and exchange ideas about who may get a lot more done when they work on their own and who may prefer to contribute and share their skills and experience with co-authors.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research