Dear Dr. Javan Doloei , Dear all,

I completely agree with you Dear Dr. Javan Doloei . A harmonious team is an ultimate pleasure.

Best regards.

only both

The number of people within a team working group depends on the subject you want to work. Of course some times working in a small group (i.e 2 persons) may reach to small results very fast.

If the study is multidisciplinary team work is obvious. Other wise it can be single working research or team work depending on our needs / working conditions.

Following

In my opinion one can be a scientist conducting research without conducting didactics, however, combining scientific research with running didactic classes at the university has many positive aspects: students are eager to create research teams and help in conducting research. On the other hand, the results of scientific research can be the basis for writing interesting scientific papers, which complement the teaching techniques used in didactics.

I invite you to the discussion

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Can there be major differences in the question of the scientific value between articles written by one or many authors?

I noticed that in the diccetics conducted on the smaller Research Gate portal there are often considerations in the subject below. Multinationality is dominant in many countries, most of scientific articles, especially those that were created as a result of research projects, have a team of authors and not one author. However, in some countries, more texts are created with one author, which is related to the specificity of research, the culture of organization and research and development or scientific and didactic activity. In addition, it may also be conditioned by the national specificity of the dominant standards in the field of conducted scientific-research or scientific-didactic activity. In my opinion, therefore, you can not objectively answer the question, which scientific articles, with one author or with many authors can or are usually more scientifically valuable? Both numerous authors are determined by many factors as well as whether the scientific article will present valuable scientific results is also determined by many factors. These two quarters, i.e. the number of authors in scientific articles and the scientific value of these articles, in my opinion, are not closely related to each other. on the other hand, multi-authoricity has its positive aspects, in terms of conducting research in a team model, exchanging scientific experiences, citing articles, and formulating constructive conclusions. However, this does not necessarily prejudge that multi-author texts can more often present more valuable scientific results. In my opinion, there is no such rule. Texts with one author have their positive qualities as well as texts with many authors also have their positive aspects, they do not always have to be the same aspects.

I invite you to the discussion.

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Determinants of writing multi-author or mono-author scientific publications

It seems to me that whether in a given community of scientists, in a given country, etc., more scientific publications are written by one author or multi-author, it depends on many factors, not only from the authors themselves. Above all, key determinants can be distinguished: specific local conventions shaped by a given community of scientists, informal standards, cultural interpersonal realities and differences in valuation, in the system of values ??referring to recognition as a more or less scientific approach in comparison of team or individual research scientists' projects. To this should be added the issues of self-realization of scientists, among whom there are people who prefer teamwork or rather individual approach to specific research, their implementation, inference and writing scientific publications. In connection with the above, many objective environmental determinants can be distinguished as well as the preferences of a particular scientist who usually writes articles either individually or more often as a team.

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

Can new online media help in the development of research conducted by international research teams?

In my opinion, the research project can be implemented on an international and organizationalally virtual basis. Information exchange and coordination of necessary activities can be carried out remotely through new online media. The necessary research can also be supported by new online media, including social media. Coarz more often also collecting data for research, conducting surveys is carried out by forms suspended on the Internet. Therefore, I believe that all research projects can be planned and conducted on an international basis and in the form of remote new internet media.

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

If you want MORE publications in a SHORTER time while staying within “already well-known body of knowledge”, Team Working Research can be a better solution.

However, if you pursue INNOVATION and HIGHER SCIENTIFIC VALUE, Team Working Research may not be a right solution. Such a quantum leap is often created by a certain crazy-bright one author. And the scholar only is remembered by the science community.

For me, nobody in my discipline (nursing) and even medicine and health economics did not know a right approach method to solve my research question. In such a case, Team Working Research does not work. I contacted many scholars beyond healthcare area and got the solution from industrial engineering, which was mathematical programming (optimization): Article Optimizing Staffing, Quality, and Cost in Home Healthcare Nu...

For you, mathematical programming (optimization) would be too easy. However, it is too difficult for nurse scientists like me. Above all, nobody in my discipline (nursing) and even medicine and health economics do not know what it is and how it can be performed. Under such a situation, Team Working Research does not work.

In my opinion, Team Working Research.

Team work.

Dear Subir Bandyopadhyay , Claire Su-Yeon Park , Zainab Jasim Khudhair , Ismail Younis Al-Hadeedy

Thanks for your answers.

Dear Dr. Dariusz Prokopowicz,

Many thanks to you indeed for your important advise and useful discussion. I wish more comments from your side.

Regards,

I think Team Working Research is better than Single Working Research. For example, I am the head of a team of four researchers. We managed to publish 30 papers in 2018

Best Regards Javan Doloei

I think team working it's will be easier than single working, "if you want to walk for long distance walk together, but if you want to walk faster walk alone but it's about short distance".

Dear Dr. Javan Doloei , Dear all,

I completely agree with you Dear Dr. Javan Doloei . A harmonious team is an ultimate pleasure.

Best regards.

. Some people do their best work as part of a group, while others prefer working independently. A question like this aims to assess your personality and your preferred method of completing a task.

Team research could be better if this team consists of good and competent researchers capable of producing high-quality and timely research work. If not, Single Working Research will be better.