I have seen many authors feel obliged to include the names of statisticians and organization leaders who merely provide permission to conduct the research at a particular facility. Strange, but most people included in a paper are not really collaborators in the truest sense. They just 'aid' the researcher with their research. Their names should probably end up in the 'acknowledgement' section.

In my own experience, I tend to only confirm the findings of my statistical output with a statistician. I also confirm these findings with a relevant specialist in the field (a professor or researcher). But that does not in anyway mean that the statistician/professor/researcher deserves a co-authorship in my paper. They just did me a service of which I have specifically asked them for (since I have my own thoughts on the same issue). I just want to clarify and fine tune my research.

 Pardon me for being very blunt, but I believe that if the idea is solely yours, and if you have done every single thing (from generating the idea, analysing the statistics, designing the methods, consulting others on your idea after you have a sound idea of it, writing up the article), I feel that you deserve the due credit you have earned.

 As a researcher, we need to have basic but sound statistical understanding, we need to be an expert in the field (your postgraduate degree in a field could be starting point) and should have received adequate research method education. I believe it is only then a researcher could design a proper study to begin with (i.e. one can have fantastic ideas but is it feasible?). In fact, this does explain a lot about one's capacity to teach others to design studies (eg. in academic institutions).

I agree with several commentators here, that single authorship is rare. But in my opinion, most authorship in a paper can be drastically reduced if we tend to not feel 'indebted' to others. Fellow researchers are duty bound to help each other not because we want fame (or authorship for this matter), but to assist each other in the quest for the truth (or maybe even a glimpse of it). I feel that it would even be an honour to be mentioned in the acknowledgment section (unless I am a true collaborator).

 This is my take on the issue. Feel free to debate guys.

Rabin

I think it is great for papers with single authors, because it reduces the nominal partners and only those who truly know the subject and contributed will be credited duly.

We all know that many students that only sign the work but " talk a good Job", and are particularly polite with masters are the best. C'est la vie.

On the other hand, today's work is complex, to research we need collaborations of many institutions and different approaches.

Concluding, I respect single works but all papers made within ethical boundaries are good, excellent s for mankind.

Personally, I prefer two or three authors papers.

Honesty is important wether there is one name or many. You have some time no other choice to work in team due to diversity of subject. Similarl is the case for the Master, PhD students.

Nowadays research subjects are so complex and multidisciplinary that an increasingly number of authors is normal, and single-author less common.

As much as I know about the engineering fields of study, the state of the art for researching is much complicated that it needs cooperation of a team of researchers, I even have seen articles with 5 authors published early. but if someone is capable to develop an idea and produce useful results of it, I think it's really admirable!

It is questionable the reference of the master on a paper that was in fact made by the student. I think it is probably more honest the name of institution that cover the project and pay the teacher, however this is the way that masters can show "work" to their departments and deans. All need to " publish or..."

C'est la vie...

All of us have good point on single author papers.

Some country already start on evaluate the professors on their single author papers since it show he or she is prominent in the area, but many country don't bother about single author or many authors.

For me, to use as references for my works, I prefer more on multi authors and if possible cross country research.

Any further comment are welcome.

In the history of science the single author papers were the standard. Think of Rayleigh, Maxwell, Einstein and others. In research centers there are still people who work alone. Not so much in universities. My experience has been is that generally those faculty who came to the university after having worked alone at research centers knew much more about the details of their subjects than those who only advised students. Of course, it is difficult to carry out experimental work by yourself. The last great scientist who was famous for having done this was G.I. Taylor and he was aided by an excellent assistant who constructed the experiments which Taylor planned.

I am not involved in hands-on research anymore, so my opinion here is just 'in principle'. I supervised numerous PhD and masters students. They used a lab I have equipped and contacts I have built. We discussed every word that went into a research paper, and although the practical work is usually done by the students, I definitely think that the supervisor is entitled to authorship. On the other hand, I am against automatic insertion of names of people who had no contribution other than to add their names on the list. Nowadays however serious journals ask the authors to indicate their contribution. I think this is a good thing.

Coming back to the actual question, my answer is that a paper has as many authors as it needs. Single-author papers in experimental physics and engineering are nowadays mostly reviews. Theoretical or computer model papers are something else, in these fields it is easier to have a single author. Modern experimental research is complex and it often requires teams. In particle physics there are some papers that have tens of authors on them, because they work in shifts and they never know who will be there when the particle they are looking for will be discovered. Life is much more complicated nowadays, equipment is much more sophisticated than it used to be and single-author papers are very rare. So the question 'what do you think of single author papers' is a bit unfair. As a reader, I think that the paper cannot be judged by the number of authors but by its content. As an author, I think that people who have a significant intellectual contribution in the paper should be on the list of authors. And if someone is head of a group that generates papers, that someone deserves to get credit for his/her group's papers.

In my point of view, the students should add their supervisors as authors if they really contribute the paper. Sometimes supervisors just give an idea for the student to proceed. Even in such a case, the supervisor should be an author.

There may be single authored papers, when the whole process has been done by that single person.

Nowadays, many single authors needs a supervisor. Many supervisors are the source of an idea and this is a real conribution , other supervisors review the paper and they add new points of view.: However each paper's author must be a person that is able to answer the most important questions coming from a reviewer or a journal editor as a prove for his/her role in the work.

SNP collection in Genetic are the product of collaborative work around the world , because few cases are found by a group or a single author. Other examples are the rare diseases annd the orphan drugs. Single authors are typical in certain topics like the development of a computer programm. I am sure that authorship must be recognized according to their real contribution to the work. These roles must be shown as a statement in many journals

Regina, in regard to the supervisor giving an idea for the research student to work. I would say that is the part of the responsibility of the supervisor. His or her credits come from having successful students.

As I said earlier, single author paper are most probably reviews, unless there is some independent researcher who does everything on his own, but that's quite rare.

One of the problems is in defining who is actually a member of the team and who is just hoping to add to their list of publications. If you haven't done any of the work then you shouldn't be listed as an author. Just having a brief chat or sharing an idea is not enough to get your name added - unless someone is offering something specific that makes a valid contribution to the project then they shouldn't be named as am author. We all know colleagues who are just amassing huge CVs through adding their name to students work and through feeling that because they are in charge of the lab they are part of all the research undertaken there. This is so annoying! When you look through some of these guys CVs you can see no coherent structure and some of the work is entry level. The question shouldn't really be whether it is okay to have single author - the question should be, 'When will we be honest enough only to add the names of those who merit it?'

Dr Blair, you are right, but actually some of this has been discussed already in this thread. The issue you discuss is quite complex, but I agree that in order to be included in a paper you have to contribute part of the experimental work or write the proposal for the grant. Btw, nowadays serious journals require statements on the contribution of each author, and this issue of false claims of participation is going to be solved...

Dr Manory, I do hope that the issue of false claims is addressed soon but we all know that academia can be slow to change and even with statements of contributions there can be issues when some junior researchers might feel pressured into including a statement from a more senior colleague that is not exactly a true representation of their contribution. For me the focus should not be about the policing of these matters by journals but the academic right for researchers to feel strong enough to exclude those who they do not feel are truly part of the team (which I think is harder than I suggest). For me, the principle should be as you suggested in January - that named authors must have made a significant contribution - but the difficulty is the politics that surrounds these decisions and junior researchers will find it hard not to include seasoned researchers who they need to keep onside for future projects, grants and promotion. Are research-managers the way to go?

Dr Blair, there is a saying that failure is an orphan but success has many parents...:-)

I think there is no real escape form what you are saying. I am not sure what you mean by research managers, but you should see a paper in particle detection in Nuclear Physics (for example CERN). The list of authors is longer than the text of the article. But they all contribute in some way...The problem you discuss should have its own thread I think: the ethics of being on the list of authors. I know that in Japan the last author on the list is the professor who owns the lab (yes, the lab in Japan is named after its Head), and he will be automatically included in all papers generated there, and this seems OK because he is the facilitator and 'keeps and eye' on all the research that comes out of that lab. But I agree that sometimes this is a problem...but there is another problem in academia, and that's the problem that whistle blowers are never hired by another lab, so basically the problem with fake authorship seems insurmountable unfortunately. If you complain officially...your career is finished. Sad but true.

I have seen many authors feel obliged to include the names of statisticians and organization leaders who merely provide permission to conduct the research at a particular facility. Strange, but most people included in a paper are not really collaborators in the truest sense. They just 'aid' the researcher with their research. Their names should probably end up in the 'acknowledgement' section.

In my own experience, I tend to only confirm the findings of my statistical output with a statistician. I also confirm these findings with a relevant specialist in the field (a professor or researcher). But that does not in anyway mean that the statistician/professor/researcher deserves a co-authorship in my paper. They just did me a service of which I have specifically asked them for (since I have my own thoughts on the same issue). I just want to clarify and fine tune my research.

 Pardon me for being very blunt, but I believe that if the idea is solely yours, and if you have done every single thing (from generating the idea, analysing the statistics, designing the methods, consulting others on your idea after you have a sound idea of it, writing up the article), I feel that you deserve the due credit you have earned.

 As a researcher, we need to have basic but sound statistical understanding, we need to be an expert in the field (your postgraduate degree in a field could be starting point) and should have received adequate research method education. I believe it is only then a researcher could design a proper study to begin with (i.e. one can have fantastic ideas but is it feasible?). In fact, this does explain a lot about one's capacity to teach others to design studies (eg. in academic institutions).

I agree with several commentators here, that single authorship is rare. But in my opinion, most authorship in a paper can be drastically reduced if we tend to not feel 'indebted' to others. Fellow researchers are duty bound to help each other not because we want fame (or authorship for this matter), but to assist each other in the quest for the truth (or maybe even a glimpse of it). I feel that it would even be an honour to be mentioned in the acknowledgment section (unless I am a true collaborator).

 This is my take on the issue. Feel free to debate guys.

Rabin

really I feel different feelings about the single authored papers specifically in experimental sciences.

it is great to design, implement and report a research project but I believe that one person can not do all the research alone, unless he behave non ethically and exclude coauthors.

I believe that, if any scientist want to conduct high quality research he should co operate with other colleagues and it will be very good if the research team is multidisciplinary. so the quality of research papers should depend on the number of authors and their scientific backgrounds

I think it depends. If some one want to test the significance of collaborator' s contribution, simply he can remove their contribution and weight his research if no value missed and his research still strong he may discard their authorship and substitute them in acknowledgement but if his work will be unacceptable so he must mention them in author's bar.  

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_a_statistician_qualified_to_be_a_co_author_in_a_research_paper_which_he_has_done_the_data_analysis

The issue depends on a number of factors. Most importantly, young researchers with little experience should mix co-authorship and single authorship. Some Universities differentiate between single and co-authored publication by putting different value for each.

Regarding the statistician role, if he analyzed the data and had the draft report about it, he deserves the credit. Other than that it is seems strange. But not confused with Supervisor role, where he deserves full credit and co-authorship in papers and articles extracted from a thesis/dissertation. This is simply means that he has contributed alot of ideas and guidance throughout the years. 

An advantage of single author, in Social Sciences at least, is to add free ideas.

Science needs heroes, that go against the flow, the odds. Those that quest the taboos.

The best science comes from the best quest, and freedom is the way.

In times of politically correctness we are half of our selves. We live in a time when a UK MP needs to speak in the UK parliament about the freedom of speech within the UK Universities. We desperately need heroes that assume the risk to be wrong, but add something different, A cooperative work it is always a compromise, in the best the max common divisor, usually the minimum.

I think that today is impossible today to question races differences, gender differences, state nations, global warming, market model, capitalism as the one solution etc..

Anyone interested in this topic in depth will find the book Little Science, Big Science and beyond by Derek John de Solla Price interesting. He saw what will happen in publishing already in 1963. See page 78 on single authorship vs. multiple authors.

http://derekdesollaprice.org/little-science-big-science-full-text/

The latest trend is no-peer reviewed publishing. From

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so

"Cabells’ list now totals around 8,700 journals, up from a bit over 4,000 a year ago. Another list, which grew to around 12,000 journals, was compiled until recently by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado. Using Mr Beall’s list, Bo-Christer Björk, an information scientist at the Hanken School of Economics, in Helsinki, estimates that the number of articles published in questionable journals has ballooned from about 53,000 a year in 2010 to more than 400,000 today."

If you are working without any other people's support, go with a single author. It does not matter. Do not give credit to other people unless you directly receive some support.

In Social Science especially in information science I found single author more than multi authors.

Claims to authorship are likely to often remain a next to criminality or dare-devil act when there is no united and clear-cut role for its suitable metrics and/or proposals. The most significant role is to sacredly prove what is that good, acceptable, perfect, will of the claimants or creators of the article. This burden of proof has led many in the trio-communal existence of publishers, authors and followers into difficulties engendered by colleagues, friends, institutions, and the society at large. According to Soyinka (1982), a refusal to take these trio into full dialectical partnership is to ignorantly and dangerously perpetuate the habit of excision, obscure the socio-economist reading of history in its time, and enthrone the dictatorship of the mutant in the realm of human ideas, products and services.

An interesting analogy is to treat this trio as "Three Blind Mice":

Three blind mice. Three blind mice. See how they run. See how they run. They all ran after the farmer's wife, Who cut off their tails with a carving knife, Did you ever see such a sight in your life, As three blind mice? [3]

Whenever any of the trio is considered to be the leader, the remaining two becomes the tail. Without tails the three mice become an endangered species, as a predator - prey system. An urgent restoration of sight for the three blind mice would help to keep their tails intact from the probing "carving knife" of their sponsors, who treat them as mere wasteful pests rather than beneficial pets.The current use of information and communication technology is already playing a key role in the restoration of sight to the trio.

"The more, the merrier", as a check in time, is recommended to serve as a metric of a beneficial contribution of publications (even if it was initially single- or multi-authored) towards promoting social democracy, rule of law, economic security, free-flow of information, and accountability.

Reference:

W. Soyinka (1982): The Critic and Society: Of Barthes, Leftocracy, and Other Mythologies, Inaugural Lecture Series 49, Univerity of Ife Press, pp. 36 - 49.

One can see :" The future of single-authored papers",

Article The future of single-authored papers

Single authored paper allows freedom in designing writing approach and thus achieve author's scholarly writing satisfaction.

Publish it, if you can