During assessment, authors are usually scored based on their position in the list of authors for papers published. This is used for decision making and performance appraisal in Nigeria. Given the work involved in publishing an article, many researchers collaborate to solve a problem, while others publish solely. Based on the assessment idea, is it better to publish as a single author or with co-authors?
Between single and multiple authors papers, which are more quality?
Thank you all for your inputs, but here in Nigeria, especially in Education and Social Science disciplines, authors are scored higher for single authored papers than being a lead author in a paper with say, 3 authors.
Arguably, does it implies that single authored papers are more quality than co-authored papers? If no, why should researchers receive higher points? Are they considering the individuals' efforts from data collection through to publication?
I get quite disturbed by the possibility that being one of five authors scores you the same as being a single author. RG does this, and I despise it.
In my subject area quality single authorship tends to produce better quality outcomes--poltical philosophy, political science. I accept that in other subject areas joint products maybe better--natural sciences.
But read whatever it and decide if it's any good. That need remains no matter what.
Christopher NOCK
In most subjects and subject areas, publications by individual authors are somewhat unusual and—apart from some disciplines in the humanities—practically impossible.
When it comes to evaluating the scientific performance of a particular researcher—for example in the context of career decisions (granting tenure) and in the approval of third-party funding—it is usually clearly taken into account what contribution an author has made to his or her publications, and first authorship (analogously: individual authorship) is of course worth more than co-authorship. Regarding co-authorship one would still distinguish between the last position in the order of authorship (senior author) and another position, whereby a senior authorship is usually rated higher.
Of course, I can't say that for all subjects in general, but in psychology, medicine, and the natural sciences that's definitely the case.
Thank you all for your inputs, but here in Nigeria, especially in Education and Social Science disciplines, authors are scored higher for single authored papers than being a lead author in a paper with say, 3 authors.
Arguably, does it implies that single authored papers are more quality than co-authored papers? If no, why should researchers receive higher points? Are they considering the individuals' efforts from data collection through to publication?
Paul: I think a single-author article should be scored much higher than a multiple-author paper. In my experience, a single-author paper requires much more work and effort. This is just my opinion, and I am curious to read other researchers' reply to this question.
I think single authored paper should be scored higher than papers with multiple authors taking into consideration the cost the single author must have incurred in conducting the study alone as opposed to the shared responsibilities in multiple authored papers
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers