Young scientists often think that a long publication list is crucial for an academic career and that obtaining multiple co-authorships are a clever strategy to make their publication list longer.
Is this true?
According to my experience papers involving large collaborations typically bring more citations and visibility. The quality of the work govern the value of the work not the number of authors, this is what I think.
The value of the paper depends on it's content and journal's impact factor.
Number of author(s) is/are not very important issues for publication(s) but when one more authors will be included for an article, publicity and visibility may increase.
Incase of value, there are no difference between the article published by alone and multiple author. Actually the value of the article depends on the novelty, methodology abd the findings.
Value of a paper never depends upon the number of authors, rather it solely depends upon the issue the paper is highlighting, its content and how significant it is in context of our community society and culture with all significance.
Though the multiple number of article authors could have nothing to do with its quality when compared to a similar single-authored work, I would argue that a single-authored paper could mirror the versatility and resourcefulness of its author. That being said, having multiple authors on a publication could be a personal plus to the main author, especially if the research was trans-locale (e.g., transnational), the main author lacked a relevant skill (e.g., doing statistics), or the main author worked under guidance from a mentor. In those cases, the collaboration of multiple authors could improve the quality of the write-up, but it could contribute nothing to its quality in comparison with a similar single-authored work.
I repeat, the number of authors has no connection to the quality of a publication if it can be done well by a single resourceful author, period.
Good luck,
The number of co-authors on a scientific paper depends on the different scientists that have directly been involved with the work. In a single author paper then it’s clear that the whole work has been carried out by that author. However very often the team leader has also his/her name on the paper in the case the research was sponsored by his/her grant or when the subject of research is part of his/her own project and ideas. Should this research being entirely supported by the grant of the author then it’s quite legitimate that he/she will be the only author of the work to be published.
The value of the paper depends on it's content, new methodology, new verifiable results and the findings not published heretofore. If it is a single author paper, the single author gets the full credit.
Multiple author paper may have more value. Because different people have different perspective.
There are real good papers having just one author, and ordinary papers by multi- authors, and vice versa.
The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors.
Yes, If it is a single author paper, the single author gets the full credit.
Quality of papers is not necessarily a function of the number of authors.
Actually the value of the article depends on the novelty, methodology abd the findings.
The value of the paper depends on it's content, new methodology, new verifiable results and the findings not published heretofore.
Number of author(s) is/are not very important issues for publication(s) but when one more authors will be included for an article, publicity and visibility may increase.
There are real good papers having just one author, and ordinary papers by multi- authors, and vice versa.
At the beginning of its career, a researcher could join a team. Indeed for affiliation in academy research group, appearing as 3rd or 4th author. My recommendation is to improve and foster its career keeping a first place as a leading author.
The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors.
Quality of papers is not necessarily a function of the number of authors.
There are real good papers having just one author, and ordinary papers by multi- authors, and vice versa.
The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors.
It is always advisable to have single author . Adds more weightage to the quality of work done singly specially in journal of repute . However to add numbers to research publication people go for Joint publications with many authors .
Like it is said "Quality is better than Quantity".
A single-author publication is similar to a publication Multi-authors. Important things is the idea and content of the publication and where it is published.
The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors.
Quality of papers is not necessarily a function of the number of authors.
Multiple author paper may have more value. Because different people have different perspective.
Number of author(s) is/are not very important issues for publication(s) but when one more authors will be included for an article, publicity and visibility may increase.
The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors.
Please note that most of indexed journals limit the number of authors to a maximum of 5.
Quality of papers is not necessarily a function of the number of authors.
Number of author(s) is/are not very important issues for publication(s).
When one more authors will be included for an article, publicity and visibility may increase.
Co-authorship on research papers bring different perspectives and point of views as well as expertise on a topic area. Co-authorship on a paper is a good team exercise, by learning to work with other in the field or varying fields. To me, it is worthwhile.
Most of the researches need team work, so a joint authored paper is much better.
I think that the joint-auther paper is better than the single one
Single authored article is held in doubt because of large resources required for leading edge work in recent times. Joint authored articles are preferred as having more credibility.
The publication is like the product. It's not a one-man show. Indeed several hands involved making it worthy.
Yes. "The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors."
Agree. "Quality of papers is not necessarily a function of the number of authors."
Number of author(s) is/are not very important issues for publication(s).
Agree. "When one more authors will be included for an article, publicity and visibility may increase."
"Long lists" are not desirable.
Above all, when you are able to tackle a topic on your own, it is better to stay that way.
Yes. When one more authors will be included for an article, publicity and visibility may increase.
Agree. "Joint authored articles are preferred as having more credibility."
I agree. "I repeat, the number of authors has no connection to the quality of a publication if it can be done well by a single resourceful author, period."
Our group is also engaged in purely experimental numerical research. Surely, every researcher knows that it is almost impossible to master the work alone and write 2-3 articles. Therefore, we have 4-5 co-authors. I don't see anything wrong with that if each of the authors put in a piece of their own.
The quality of the paper has nothing to do with having a single author or multiple authors. There are brilliant paper written by either. It is true as Mateo De la Garza suggests "two minds are better than one", but in other cases, it could be argued that "a ship can only have one captain." Two or more might lead to different destinations causing confusion and probably ending with conflict and failure!
As a young author, I have been greatly assisted by my fellow co-authors with more experience. Hence I like to have a co-author for my first 5 publications and after that I would think of publishing a single author publications.
However if you are an experienced author and would still like to add extra spice into your work, a co-author's view might still help you. However even if I do become an experienced author, I would have another co-author, if they think having me is good for there article. That is my way of giving back to society.
I actually prefer co-authored articles than single author articles in general as I feel more thought is given when more than one person works on a publication. This is my personal opinion only
Number of author(s) is/are not very important issues for publication(s).
The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors.
the nature and quality of study is the most important aspect apart from the number of authors
"The publication is like the product. It's not a one-man show. Indeed several hands involved making it worthy."
"The important aspect is the quality of the paper, not the number of authors."
Agree, "Joint authored articles are preferred by the scientific community."
Agree. "Joint authored articles are preferred as having more credibility."
It's not a one-man show. Indeed several hands involved making it worthy.
Agree, "The publication is like the product. It's not a one-man show. Indeed several hands involved making it worthy."
Joint authored articles are preferred by the scientific community.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication