Agreed! It's important to collaborate due to the complexities of the modern world we now enjoyed or were forced to live in. By choice or peer pressure life has evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer routline and planning or thinking of anything for such a lifestyle necessitates more than just one discipline. So, it's important to be a Steve Job and an engineer, graphics and artists, salesman and more. That is much easier through collaborative efforts. Hope this answers a little to your query, implicit or explicit.

Agreed! It's important to collaborate due to the complexities of the modern world we now enjoyed or were forced to live in. By choice or peer pressure life has evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer routline and planning or thinking of anything for such a lifestyle necessitates more than just one discipline. So, it's important to be a Steve Job and an engineer, graphics and artists, salesman and more. That is much easier through collaborative efforts. Hope this answers a little to your query, implicit or explicit.

Absolutely yes...

In brief,

Teamwork for sure will produce excellent quality. Connection is a something very required.

Yes. It is very important.

Yes, collaboration for every people.

Yes. As far as every participant will contribute maximally. Team work, in most cases is expected to improve the quality of research work.

Сотрудничество между учеными при написании статьи позволяет поднять работу на более высокий уровень. Современное знание настолько разнообразно, что один человек не в состоянии его охватить. Благодаря соавторству можно рассмотреть проблему с разных сторон.

1=No, it is not a necessity.

2=Yes, it can reinforce an approach.

3=Discourse communities are paramount=collaboration=communication.

_______________________________________________________________

The history of science and technology documents that breakthroughs were mostly done by well connected individuals, in terms of scientific communication. Any methodical compulsion of the research method should be avoided to yield highest scientific results=the model of the academic assembly line can even impede further progress of knowledge, wisdom and truth=danger of collective artifacts and common errors. In this sense, the advancement of science is not 'democratic' as by published vote of a majority of authors.

yes

Questions of this kind have been circulating for some time on this network.

I reply as in the past: collaboration is not necessary in itself; it becomes important when the team is made up of researchers worthy of the name and who can make actual contributions to the subject / project.

Otherwise, it is much better to work alone.

Not necessary

Yes, it is important because it achieves a state of brainstorming and exchange ideas among researchers, thus enriching the research with information that would make it of scientific value ... with appreciation

I used to work alone. I just began collaborating on the last two projects. I find it really fun, since I enjoy discussing my work. As mentioned earlier by Stephen I. Ternyik, collaboration allows me to explore alternative approaches. It gives more access to data sources. And, it make sure the result goes through peer reviews. Of course, everyone should contribute.

Collaborative research is important to enable researchers to share experiences since we are global village.

1. yes

2. A single scholar is more suitable for continuous research on a specific topic, but if the scale of the problem is large, it will exceed the scholar's cognition.

Collaboration between different laboratories is important if we want to make substantial progresses. Some areas of research are so complex that there is a need for a narrow collaboration between different specialized labs. Examples Electron microscopy, mass-spectrometry, peptides sequencing and synthesis, DNA synthesis and sequencing ,Computer modelling, and many other... Such collaborations end up with multi-authors publications

The question of one-author-Article was many times considered on RG.

To my surprise, most of the answers were negative - meaning that co-operative research is a better choice.

In fact the answer to this question - depends first of all on the discipline under study. It's obvious that mathematicians or often physicists (theorists) very often do not need co-authors (the co-authors in their articles may appear - the main author + Boss - which is a bad practice), while in case of chemists, biologists the article usually has more then 3 co-authors... but usually only ONE of them is the real leader.

In other words: 1. Co-authorship is not necessary.

2. It is useful only if the research requires to employ a variety of methods.

yes-its always better to work in teams

Reason- You have more heads means more ideas..then there is a shortage of functioning labs, and the lab equipment can be shared.results can be verified too

Yes,

Reasoning: Team work and sharing of resources are important factors for contributing towards the knowledge base...

I dont think theres any importance associated with that. Writing a paper alone requires a lot of time and dedication. I believe in collaboration as it may save time and provide more ideas for the research.

This is an opportunity to take into account at the same time a large number of opinions of independent experts on the scientific problem of interest

Yes very important because provide the researchers more knowledge and contribution.

For medical researchs; collaborative work is very important as each researcher contribute to his field of practice especially if the work is a combined clinical and lab work.

I would go for both; editorials can be published single or two authors, case reports can be up to 5. Original retrospective o/ prospective tidies and RCT, s can accommodate multiple authors.

Yes it is necessary

Great insight coming, major say it important. But this cannot be considered as thumb rule

Thank you all

It's not an appropriate methodology for human science (Philosophy, Theology, etc.)

better with more heads

نعم فذلك يطور خبرات البحث العلمي ويوسع آفاق تبادل المعلومات العلمية وتنوع الآراء

Yes, researchers with different background will have their input and makes the research interesting with greater contribution to the scientific community.

Yes, I agree.

As multiple minds, knowledge & resources are put together