Dear respected colleagues, kindly let me know your opinion on a single author paper. What does it reflect? Does single author paper good for the field and the researcher? Does it show the competency of the author? Thanks.
Maybe it seems weird in some countries but as dear Dr Subhash C. Kundu mentioned sometimes one can accomplish all steps and I have some experiences in this way working . No sponsor , No partner, No collaborator, all I should do by my own pocket money, therefore it is rational to put only one name in this case!
A single author paper should reflect the only contribution of its sole author to its completion. But, is this always the case? Let me have my doubts.
Regards
Good question dear Segun Michael,
I am Following it.
Thank you for sharing your question.
Good luck
It is not the question of single or multiple author paper.
If one can complete paper at its own, can be single author paper.
If more authors contribute in the paper, can be multiple author paper.
The research presented in a paper should be new and sound enough. It does not matter whether it has been carried out by sole author or many author. But one thing is sure if a good manuscript has been published by sole author then it shows his/her academic strength and intelligence as well.
Content and quality of research are more important rather than number of authors.
Single author papers also may also be of very high quality.
In multidisciplinary research , there will be more than one authors.
I agreed with Dr Qais Faryadi. Let me add that single authored paper enables the researcher to learn more. It also enhances the confidence of the writer as a scholar. Thus, it serves as a form of training and as a motivator.
Sometimes the author invents or presents new featured conclusion and wants for these new things to be for him or her as invention.
Dear Segun,
It is important to publish our research !!! Felicitation and succès.
Best regards,
MTT
What do you think of the unique author paper? it's possible
What do you think of working with one hand? it's possible
What do you think of working with 2 hands? it's better
Please have a look at this RG link.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_on_single_author_papers
A single author paper very often is even better than the paper presented by a large number of co-authors. of course it depends on the subject. For example, a single author paper - is typical for mathematicians, theor. physicists - the scientists who present and discuss their own ideas and do not need any assistance from collaborators.
Of course the situation for synthetic chemists, biologists
- genetics - in other words to those who need to conduct a great number of very different experiments to prove their findings -the situation differs.
A single author paper very often is even better than the paper presented by a large number of co-authors. of course it depends on the subject. For example, a single author paper - is typical for mathematicians, theor. physicists - the scientists who present and discuss their own ideas and do not need any assistance from collaborators.
Of course the situation for synthetic chemists, biologists
- genetics - in other words to those who need to conduct a great number of very different experiments to prove the findings -the situation differs.
Whether single author or joint authors, the important thing is that quality and original research is conducted. In most cases when you have input from more than one authors coming together, you record a better output
Thank you all dear respected colleagues for your contributions.
I'm agree with Abderrahmane Khechekhouche
Nevertheless, We cannot make objective judgment, there are many reasons, conditions, circumstances, etc....
* Some, need to write alone some papers as a conditions for promote its grade.
* Others write some papers because He has an original idea which doesn't need a second contributor, etc...
* Nevertheless, there are some people who always write as single!!!
Here, I say: " There are things in the river that can not be in the sea! "!!! ...
God give different artifacts etc... distributed in different persons to encourage us to collaborate together, to be patient for the Science, to forgive us because we have different behaviors, etc....
If the research work is not multidisciplinary and a researcher is capable of performing all the experimental works and writing the paper at his/her own, he/she can publish papers in single authorship. It depends on the subject. For an applied work in science and technology, research has to be multidisciplinary. In arts and humanities may study the aspect solely.
A research work is judged by the quality in all its caveats. If a researcher accomplishes the study of a phenomenon in a sole fashion, s/he has to be a sole author. However, there are studies that are of a wider spectrum and thus demands a jig-saw approach, involving multiple researchers to come out with a very rigorous work. Sole authorship require great research dexterity and sharp focus.
A researcher must be skilled in working independently and in a team. Every researcher must strive to work at producing quality sole and multiple authored papers.
The question is can one authr conduct all the work by himself
Normally it comes on the quality and quantity
More than author normally bring better and more works
It is not problem of one author or multiple authors, although it is a lot of efforts by one person, it is about the work type and how significant and which point of research covered with that research paper
Profs, Docs, I commend you for your contributions. Best Regards.
If you can win a foot ball game by a single player, then you can challenge research problems alone!!
No problem; if someone can carry out the work and write paper individually, he/she can be single author of the paper.
What do you think about single author paper?
Quality of a paper is not dependent on single or multiple-author but rather on the rigor of the research & write up that capable in contributing to knowledge.
Honestly, it is not the fact of having one or more authors that will indicate the quality or contribution of an article. In my opinion the most important is the methodological rigor and the conduction of the research.
In recent times journals have preferred more than one author and from different research groups. Decades ago single authors produced most of the fundamental new science. Now fundamental new science is not produced in the main stream of research.
Outside the main stream so many voices call for recognition that the potential for something fundamentally new is lost in the crowd.
Peers don't want something far advanced from the library, because it hinders the career. They want slow steady progress on incremental discovery. A number of the best scientists died before their work became recognized.
In retirement I can reach beyond the peers and ask the question they didn't want to hear, challenging the assumptions. A group of exceptional colleagues give assistance, but do not want to co-author. So I publish as a single author.
Research should produce something reproducible and make a prediction of something that can be tested, but has not been done yet. Much of science no longer does this. Mathematical consistency and agreement with past conclusions is offered as original scientific work, and diplomas are earned that way.
The majority of research authors will not receive recognition in a life time. The better the work, the less chance of recognition. For teachers the success of students gives the recognition. A combination of teaching and research can make a satisfactory career.
For most researchers the opportunity is to develop a career acceptable to the peers and superiors, then live the good life and write a book in old age.
In an industrial career there are additional opportunities. A visionary mentor can still leap beyond the status quo, and encourage the younger colleagues to excel. There may be one or more authors, often only one. The mentor choses the topic that can be tested. Proof comes in the monthly financial report. A vice president reads the names in a quarterly communique. The peers are speechless for a brief moment. Nothing about it is published except for the occasional patent. A great leap forward can be made in product life cycle, production, maintenance, reliability, safety, environment, yield, and cost. It is the continual improvement and brings a rewarding career in factories, laboratories, and offices.
The single author is acceptable in some places but not in others. The researcher can hope for recognition from friends and associates. A wider recognition is seldom achieved in a life time. Career risk applies to those who reach for it.
I know many authors who prefer to do research alone, write alone, read alone, publish alone. Perfectly acceptable.
I agree with most of colleagues but nicely said by dear Dr. Han Ping Fung,
For the paper to be published there should be at least ONE author.
One-author-paper often is published in mathematics, physics, and related sciences. There is nothing strange in it.
I think one-author paper has not any superiority than multi-auther one! This kind of separation or classification has not rational background because maybe you find so strong multi-auther article and all of authers have been contributed in it. Also i think in modeling investigations one-author paper can be more feasible rather than experimental one.personally, i found multi-auther experimental articles so alluring!
Cheers
Amir
I actually think that a multi-author paper has been checked by more minds
I don't think that single or multiple authorship reflects the quality of once work. Mostly giants of there field are busy and hardly gets time to document there idea in that case they build a small group where they divide there work and successfully complete the tasks without waiting or waiting for spare time. These days mostly researchers are also involve in teaching activities so they hardly get time from there busy schedule, working in small group is the only option they have. Thanks!
Single authorship is OK, if the work actually reflect scientific independence of the author. It is very important to know that the scientific independence may be questioned if the work is multidisciplinary. This is particularly true, when a person is expert in a ‘supporting technique’ such as histology, electron microscopy, imaging or behavioral testing.
Content and quality of research are more important rather than author quantities. that is all. ,
Science is ultimately built on collective efforts. I think research in natural, social or human sciences has three levels
1-Micro Level: This is an individual research field.
2-Meso: This needs a team of dual or triple researchers.
3-Macro Level: This needs a full team of researchers.
Therefore, the participation of a number of researchers in research of the first type, is a waste of time, and the lack of number of researchers in the second and third type, does not serve science and does not serve the quality of research.
Thanks Dr YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, Dr Marcelo Tsuguio Okano, Dr Anna Paula Azevedo De Carvalho and Dr Ahmed Mousa Badawi for your contributions.
In my faculty it is said - if you write a single author paper you are not team worker, but if you have coauthors in the papers you are not independent... :)
So, I have papers as single author, and papers with multiple authors.
It depends on the field of research work. In areas like natural and biological sciences, a team can cover more methodological ground, combining ideas from different fields to make an advance no single author could have made alone. Obviously, the related papers will be multiple authored. After all it is content of the paper that matters.
it depends on the subject. For some sciences many experiments are conducted involving many laboratories working on collaboration.
Thanks Dr Jelena Lukić, Dr YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI and Dr Segueni Narimane for your contributions.
I would never work with anyone else researching and writing papers. This can only work if the subject involves data collection of one kind or another.
It depends on the ability of author to work the practical part with written all paper .
I have single author paper
In my point of view, the quantity of authors is not important in a research. Novelty, content and quality of research are more significant rather than that one.
Single author paper mean the researcher has worked in isolation. If it is a good quality paper, it has no positive or negative impact on the researcher. Most of papers from social science are single author.
Very good discussion and I would support the argument of Dr. Qais Faryadi
All 11 books and most of my publications are co-authored. However, I did have solo authorship on several articles involving innovative concepts in geotechnical engineering covering both theoretical and applied research.
The fact that a paper is authored by a single author vs. multiple authors is mostly irrelevant. A team of researchers may or may not contribute more to the research than a sole author. Sometimes authors are included in a multi-author paper to satisfy political hierarchy in an organization although the respective persons may have contributed very little to the research and may have been responsble for grant writing.
The ability of the researcher to complete the research is what determines the need for one researcher or several researchers. In general, applied research requires a team to accomplish it distinctively.
It depends on the branch of science. In humanitarian studies, as a rule, the author is single. It is very difficult to merge the positions of two or more scientist. The exception is stable pairs of like-minded people, there are also such. However, in the natural sciences, especially those associated with various physical methods of research, there are usual presence of several authors. Indeed, it is difficult to be the "coryphaeus of all sciences." Therefore, this article requires the teamwork: an idea generator, performers, an integrator, often a connoisseur of previous research. Nevertheless, in my opinion, to be the only author of a natural scientific article - this is aerobatics, should strive for this. Just now, I am trying to write such an article.
Another option is possible: all co-authors are in a positions of administrative subordination: the boss of all bosses, the big boss, the deputy of the big boss, etc. Only the last 1-3 people actually did this article. The merit of the firsts is that they did not interfere ... In Russia, this is called a locomotive [parovoz] (in this case it is better to translate as “a train”), because one locomotive drags a lot of wagons (often empty) behind it ...
this link is useful
https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=204676.0
regards
Dr Segun Michael Abegunde , I do not see there is any negative reflection if your paper is single authored..moreover it demonstrates the high competency of the author.
I think all the comment agree that depend on the type of paper: Book, chapter, research or orginal article, review article , case report, editorials.
I think Dr Subhash and Dr Anastas gave good answers and examples.
Dear all,
It is not a matter of formality to decide on the number of authors but of necessity. Contemporary knowledge has become more specialized and deeper up on which a single scientist works, while problems become of several manifolds and interconnected and therefore their solutions are from parameters of several fields. These are the very reasons of cooperation of research and publications in contemporary scientific galaxies.
It is good to be a single author, but this wont affect the content of the paper itself
Thanks Dr Stanley Wilkin, Dr Luma M. Ahmed, Dr Srdjan Atanasijevic, Dr Seyed Mehdi Mohammadizadeh, Dr Khudhair Abbas, Dr Nafees Mohammad, Dr Arman Dahmardeh, Dr Rai Waqas Azfar Khan, Dr Anastas Ivanov Ivanov, Dr Amir W. Al-Khafaji, Dr Srini Vasan, D r Isam Issa Omran, Dr Vadim S. Gorshkov, Dr Hassan Nima, Dr Ataul Karim Patwary, Dr Gamal Abdul Hamid, Dr Dejenie A. Lakew and Dr Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe for your great contributions. Be regard,
A single author peer reviewed journal article demonstrates the independence and competency of the researcher in publishing original work. As previous answers have indicated, a single author in a published paper usually occurs in the humanities where the author's perspective is valued. In contrast, in the sciences, there are usually multiple authors in journal publications where many authors are required to work together to analyse the large amounts of data in a quantitative manner (as it is very tedious and time consuming to work on one's own).
Thanks Dr Anastas Ivanov Ivanov and Dr Weimin Toh for your contributions.
if an author is competent enough to write an article by himself/herself, there is no need to search for co-authors. some topics require a team to cooperate because of practicality.
Quality of research is more important rather than author quantities.
If the written paper is competent, and valuable, it's as good as multiple author article.
I think a single author paper will face one problem concerning the citations. There will be less opportunity to get citations. Multiple authors will help the wide spread media of the published paper.
That's a good question. This question directly concerns me and my works. But it is good not only for that reason. Generally speaking, the quality and significance of scientific work should not depend on the number of authors. At least because the number of authors, at least according to the formal rules for reviewing the article, should not influence the decision on its acceptance for publication. On the other hand, we are well aware, for example, that the foundations of quantum mechanics were hammered by single authors. Their names are Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc. This applies not only to theoretical work, but partly to experimental ones. For example, the single-player experimenters were Faraday and Michelson. We note at once that the above-mentioned names are the names of outstanding, and, moreover, great scientists. Hence it is obvious that the quality of scientific work is determined by the quality of the creator, and not by their quantity. In modern science, a scientific article has, as a rule, a large number of authors. And this is not often due to the permanent complication of science and / or experimental technology, as is often attempted to present and justify. This is due, for various reasons, with the appearance of a large number of scientists. Now many people think that in science it is relatively simple and easy to make a prestigious career, to obtain degrees, etc. So, we usually have a large number of authors in one article, which, obviously and at least agree with its content . (There are, of course, paradoxes when big bosses, when coauthored, do not even know about their existence: they are too busy people.) In fact (but not according to formal rules!) such articles are much easier for the editorial office to publish, although they may be simply erroneous: the magic of large numbers here works. It is believed that the majority can not be wrong: in politics, we are "taught" democratic elections. Here we seem to have come to the most important thing. Yes, in politics this is so: for the stability of a social society, we need the support of the majority. But where is science? At least, its content part. Of course, we can also organize the stability of the scientific community in the same way, for example, of various academies, but alas they often do not have a direct, meaningful attitude to true science. The conclusion from my long response to this question is very simple. Try to understand independently the content of scientific work and evaluate its quality in essence, rather than by the number of authors. Moreover, treat with a special suspicion of scientific articles with a large number of authors. As the recent sad historical experience shows us, the authoritative majority can greatly err. And even more so, the majority can often make mistakes when it comes to scientific work.
The number of authors in a publication is insignificant. What matters is the quality of the paper and its contribution to knowledge.
My personal opinion paper is not suppose to be a single author because the writer is either someone that supervise a student work or his been supervised by someone and this written paper from it the work needs to acknowledge either the supervisor or the student the carried out the wok. Lets always acknowledge those that contributed in our research work
Sometimes single author alone can did a good paper especially in building model even this sometime takes long time and efforts.
Regards,
Hamid Al-Jameel
Dear Segun Michael Abegunde
It is more than conceivable that occasionally a topic can only be steadily contemplated by one individual (without unreasonable "compromises" occurring); BUT there are also cases (many in science) where the opposite is true (e.g. inter-rater reliability is essential to communication and thus also to science).
I have written some papers and hundreds of essays either with no known, or notable, influence from others (i.e. others in-person); I think they are good; in fact, I have worked on certain things conceptually for decades, basically or mainly just individually [BUT the writings always based on EXTENSIVE readings (very many or most all, or all that are relevant), including reading research reports].
Some things (thinking/writings) that that appear consistent/congruent with known phenomenology, with needed and good/likely congruence with other involved science, with logical consistency, and which are likely realistic perspectives, as presented (like some of mine), persist in "violating" very common, supposedly scientific bases: held-hard assumptions; YET some significant cases of these latter may well involve "assumptions" (pseudo-assumptions/presumptions) that may very much NOT be true (and may be stifling/limiting or quite possibly/likely worse, completely blocking progress; some are likely opposite what is true, in very important (central/core) ways). If not examined and thought about, and alternatives considered, but rather IN THE COMMON VIEWS EVEN OF A SCIENCE/scientists just firmly , and essentially, always (strongly indirectly or directly) held-true, this may be "trouble"; in such cases ; betterment may be facilitated by those concepts and perspectives being at least mainly dealt with critically (at least in the "final analysis") by one person. This, more than plausibly, eliminates pressures for what is actually unreasonable (irrational and/or unrealistic) "compromise" which would otherwise likely happen.
Maybe it was with similar intent that some monks used to go into seclusion for very long periods of time and be alone (e.g. in caves). Perhaps this is what motivated them.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles