I agree with you, the contribution between authors very useful for both,

1. Research team produce valuable research,

2. increase the scope of specific scientific point,

3.improve research concepts.

Regards

The answer is not complex Darlusz. It's a matter of research 'rigour' - for all research approaches - quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. I agree that research teams (and publication author list) should not be more than is needed. To me, any more than 10 authors is questionable. However, I review for over 40 international journals. Not all of them are blind review. If I can determine a single author (other than for conceptual/opinion articles) then I am immediately wary of the increased potential for data manipulation and subjectivity. For some approaches i.e. meta-analysis one simply can't have a single author publication without cross-checking processes according to established protocol.

Many journals now ask for author contribution according to research process stages. This is on the assumption that multiple authors will be involved in that process.

Most researchers collaborate. Only very few write research papers by themselves. In addition, you get better ideas through collaboration.

Hi,

We are now in the age of interdisciplinarity and enhanced scientific collaboration. The digital tools made it easier for scientists to collaborate. This is one reason. Another reason is more practical, researchers realized that collaborating papers are more easily accepted for publication by most editors, and they also receive more citations then single authors' papers.

I second all of the answers listed here!

I strongly agree with Witold Bogusz with a little amendment: In many situations we just offer co-authorship as the reward for providing data for analysis. I think, it is fair, especially when we deal with colleagues working for the industry and when the data does not have a real value for companies, but may form the basis for scientific research.

Personally, I find co-authorship as an added value for younger researchers (students) who are involved in some parts of research program. Even if the “young-ones” were not directly involved in “writing of the paper”.

Contrary, I find “including the direct supervisor” mentioned by Witold Bogusz as an abuse, unless the “person in charge” is really involved in conceptual part of the research.

Because of the increasing importance of collaborative work.

Different researchers have their strength in different aspects.of tje research. Some are strong on data analysis, some are sttrong on data collection some are strong on creating figures and pictures. Some are good in reviewing literature etc.

Very clear info from Witold Bogusz about this query.

I was able to include many of my student assistants as co-authours on many papers drawings on their strengths. For example one student was very good at righting. computer software code. We were able to complete a very good co-authored peer-reviewed article in Journal of Data Science. Co-authored with 3 of my student assistants.

Both are beneficial and add useful experience to researchers!

Because interdisciplinary and/or collaborative researches are the in-thing in research in recent times. Research grants are more often won by multi-disciplinary researches than single discipline researches

Different authors have different strengths. Some are better in data collection, some are better in data analysis, some are better coding ,some are better in pure research and some are better providing innovative ideas.

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz

There is one more aspect that was not mentioned yet in this discussion.

It is the "need of recognition and prestige" that is based on actual "metrics" imposed by founding institutions and/or publishers. Co-author with foreign affiliation positively affect the overall impression of the paper. The author with scientific title makes it more "profound, deep and sophisticated". I personally met a recognized reviewer who declared that his opinion on reviewed contribution is partially based on authors' h-index. It just guarantees future citations and gives prospects for higher journal's Impact Factor. However that sounds like a "conspiracy" but that's just the world we cope with :-)

Best regards

Jaroslaw Rybak

Inter-disciplinary approach..

From my opinion, every additional coauthor adds additional credit to the work.

Great people! Interesting points are highlighted.

I was able to work with my 3 student assistants and was able to submit a paper to a high level journal but more importantly I was able to get this paper published after a significant revision. More importantly, I was able to make revisions based on new computer programming using R programming language where not only my student assistant learned R, but also improved the paper where it got eventually published in a very good academic journal. (Journal of Data Science)

Presently, most research problems cannot be solved by an individual scientist because of the vastness of the problem. Sometimes, the problem may be multi-disciplinary, and a team comprising of experts from different disciplines is required. The researcher should be able to work in a team where personal ego or dislikes will not have a place. Naturally, when papers are written out of such collaborative attempts, it will have multiple authors!

Considering the interdisciplinary needs towards a particular problem, many a times, researchers prefer to use inputs from experts from interdisciplinary sciences that help to correlate various sub-themes of work concerned and to arrive at judicious conclusion...

In my view, this is a very positive trend.

You are absolutely right Emmanuel. It is indeed a very positive trend.

You need multiple points o f view multiple disciplines multiple research ideas.

RG always should consider quality of publication, #of citations, but should also add to the RG minimally the # of reads & # of recommendations.

Dariusz, your interesting question raises an important issue into not only why co and multi-authorships are common research practice but also how this might have come about. The adage 'two heads are better than one' comes into mind within this domain of teaming up with one or more colleagues to study a specific problem and to write about what has been found. One tends to benefit from the combined set of expertise and skill-sets, competencies, innovative practices that people bring to research collaborations, bid writings, special issues, journal publications and so on. Interesting.

The # of citations is the most important factor. The # of reads & # of recommendations are important second. Without the # of reads, the citations are not as meaningful, because without # of reads, theoretically, we can't have citations.

Thank you very much for participating in this discussion, for valuable tips, supplements, inspiring theses and new insights on the above issues. I would like to add a few words to the above discussion on this interesting topic. The choice of publishing formula, i.e. in the formula for publishing single-author multi-author libs, is determined by various factors. For a researcher and scientist publishing their research results, all these elements are usually relevant: reading, recommendations and citation. All these elements inform about the scale of significance and recognition of specific publications from the point of view of other researchers and scientists operating in specific scientific disciplines. Because all these elements, i.e. readership, recommendations and quotability, influence each other to a certain degree, i.e. the increase in one causes, to a greater or lesser degree, a correlated increase in other factors, so following the principle of synergy, a good strategy may be to assume that all these factors are important. All of the listed factors describing the academic achievements and scientific achievements are significant, including the level of readership, recommendations, citation, etc. All are important because they are more or less related to each other. In addition, it is also important to choose the right magazine, preferably the most reputable, known in the world of science and having a high level of Impast Factor for the purposes of publishing a scientific article to present the results of scientific research. Everything is important, i.e. each stage of the process of preparing the text for publication, the editorial process up to the journal's choices, and publishing the published article in the formula of open access on the pages of various scientific portals and indexes of scientific publications. The correct choice of a scientific journal is a key issue. The right choice of journal to publish the results of scientific papers is also an important issue that can have a big impact on the subsequent recognition and visibility of the published article on the Internet. To properly choose a journal to publish the results of research, it is necessary to take into account the following determinants during the selection: issues, profiling the journal for a specific scientific discipline, which should result from the title of the journal; the issue of reputation, recognition of a given magazine in the world of science; specific Impact Factor level; form of publication of the journal, i.e. traditional / printed and / or electronic publication; open access formula issue; the issue of entering a journal and / or published articles in various indexation databases of scientific publications; publishing institution, its type and the issue of recognition in the world of science. If the editors of the journal do not enter individual published articles in various scientific portals and indexes of scientific publications, it is worth doing it yourself. If a published article in the open access formula is entered in many scientific portals and indexation databases of scientific publications, the visibility of the article on the Internet can be significantly increased many times, which translates into increased recognition of this article in the world of science, and increased the likelihood of article search in search engines. The effect of this increase in the recognition of a given text on the Internet may be an increase in the readability of this text and an increase in its citation in the scientific works of other researchers and scientists. Choosing the right magazine can significantly increase your readership. The growing level of readership also increases the likelihood of reaching many recommendations and many citations. When it comes to making the right choice of publishing formula in order to achieve a high level of readability of the published text, high citation, etc., it is also a matter of choosing the publishing formula, i.e. in the publication formula of one-author multi-author libs also may be of significant importance in the above issue.

What do you think about it?

What is your opinion on this topic?

I am asking for an answer and invite you to a discussion, Best regards, Have a nice day,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

It increases visibility of the paper.

Hi,

The multi-authored scientific papers trend started mainly at the end of the 1980s and continued in the 1990s and the 2000s in increased numbers. It was proven that multi- authors papers are cited more than single-authored ones, and the funding companies that are funding scientific papers preferred collaborative papers on single authors' ones, so, from all aspects, the trend of collaboration in science received priorities and support.

collaboration and interdisciplinary nature of studies... Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5200-5205.

Collaboration interdisciplinary nature is more important than collaboration within the discipline. I have done both collaboration between a nurse and decision scientists or collaboration with two decision scientists. I think both can be fruitful and bring great results.

I agree with what has been said already that many research studies are done by teams and all deserve recognition. I think another question is why so many authors? I've seen journal articles with 100 authors. That is more political in my view. Many journals establish criteria for an author to be included. Here are the criteria from Yale U.

All co-authors should have been directly involved in all three of the following:

• planning and contribution to some component (conception, design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation) of the work which led to the paper or interpreting at least a portion of the results;
• writing a draft of the article or revising it for intellectual content; and
• final approval of the version to be published.  All authors should review and approve the manuscript before it is submitted for publication, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.
• https://provost.yale.edu/policies/academic-integrity/guidance-authorship-scholarly-or-scientific-publications

Hi,

The main reasons are, that collaborative papers are the trend in recent years, and these papers receive more citations than single-author's ones.

Yes they could collaborate from the same discipline or from different disciplines. For example I was able to coauthor with someone from nursing

Thank you for your reply, for participating in our discussion. Thank you for your participation in the discussion and for explaining your position on the issue of multi-authoring of scientific publications. I am glad that we have a similar opinion on this issue.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Thank you Dariusz. I think any collaboration os great. However collaboration among or between different disciplines is even better. For example someone from a medical field collaborating with a colleague in statistics is great because we are able to provide an answer to an important scientific question with a certain level of statistical confidence

Hi,

Collaboration in science production is the "name of the game" in the last two decades, and are encouraged by the funding companies, and originators of scientific grants. There are those who think that the demand for collaborative science reduces originality of the scientific thought, due to compromises that are often needed in a collaborative work..

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz in our discipline, synthetic inorganic chemistry, teamwork and multi-author publications are the norm. We synthesize new chemical compounds, but when the synthesis was successful these compounds must be fully characterized by various analytical and spectroscopic methods. Each of these methods requires the participation of a specialized scientist. In the end, our original papers normally have at least 3-4 authors. When the work involved an international collaboration between two or three research groups, a published paper can even have ten or more authors such as the one cited below.

Article Three new types of transition metal carboranylamidinate complexes

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz as I mentioned earlier, in our field of research this is not a question what we "prefer" but what the practiclal conditions are. I explained this in detail in my last answer. Single-author papers in chemistry are normally either review articles or research papers in theoretical chemistry where the author just needs a computer. In my opinion it absolutely doesn't make sense to reason about which type of paper is better. What counts is the novelty and importance of the reported results.

Please see also this usefi link entitled

"The proportion of co-authored research articles has risen markedly in recent decades"

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/04/04/the-proportion-of-co-authored-research-articles-has-risen-markedly-in-recent-decades/

I think collaborations with colleagues in different disciplines is best because we are using different aspects of our disciplines that integrates the research in an optimal way.

Hi,

This is actually as a response to journal editors who prefer collaborative papers on papers written by a single author. It is true for the social sciences, and the sciences, but in the humanities most publications are still single author ones, which is the reason for low citation rates for these papers. Collaborative papers are cited more, and this is one of the reasons why they are accepted for publication more often than single author papers,

Dear Avishag Gordon,

Yes, in some scientific disciplines multi-author publishing dominates because it is associated with a higher citation rate.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

If one is specialized, one can publish single author review article which will give direction to future research. Beyond doubt, single authorship publication has more impact. Commentary / comments/letter to the Editor articles can be published in single authorship. The aim should be focussed on meaningful publication ,which can be translated in to real application.

In agreement with @D.P.S RATHORE, single author publication show actual commitment and mastership in the details of research reported on by an article.

However, joint authorship can add mutual checks (avoid mistakes, improve readability, add multiple angles to a main focus) and unique scientific value.

Let us not be fooled by an idealised scientific dream. Articles are published by real people: a "publish or perish" principle may still rule in leadong universities or laboratories, forcing people to find a sustained path to being published.

Joining forces with somebody "known" and respected for past work may remove barriers to entry to publication. Conversely joining forces with someone less "known" but committed and active may be valuable fir those willing to share their "personal brand" against offloading work to someone else, the "real sherpa" carrying out the work. This asymmetry is often illustrated by the professor giving name and blessing co-authoring with a graduate student giving scientific effort and ideas in short the substance to an article. Most cases have a variable dimension not transparent to external readers by which a professor or senior researcher may have given key indications orienting the work or helping it out of a possible dead-end it might have stayed in otherwise. Conversely the sherpa might not be minor either, and co-authors add their individual credibility and personal brands, consolidating these as a team brand and credibility.

There is however the too often observed "cherry on the cake" phenomenon, where someone gets added to the list of real authors by "birth right", feudal principle (he or she is the boss or sponsor?) or other non-transparent influence.

Fortunately we have platforms like researchgate to ensure the possibility to publish individual pre-prints, ang get less perfected work than the solid peer reviewed publucation, however free to some extent of the corridor politics of organisations...

Do you agree that this is unfortunately a fair summary of the more-dirty-than-it-looks business of scientific writing and publishing?

Dear authors

Thank you for sharing this excellent question.

I agree with Prof. Di Francesco.

Kind regards

Dear D.P.S. RATHORE,

Yes, you indicated the key attributes of single-author texts. Thank you for your reply and participation in our discussion.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I agree with what has been said before, but the increase in world population and education especially in developing countries, it has helped a lot to greatly increase the number of researchers in the world. And the ease of communications made it possible to form scientific teams in every field, which was very difficult in my time.

The more authorship of a single journal paper makes it more credible, 1) evaluated by more than just 1 person; 2) journals that are peer reviewed not just 1 credible person of related background but more than 1 are credible; 3) when editing, reevaluation of content, and proof reading then more than 1 author can be a big help for a good result; 4) when looking for a bigger budget or grant, group of authors are relevant and significant.

The practical answer is to earn tenure or maintain financial support many scientists are required to publish papers to show their progress and justify further support. That said, each author usually has contributed in some way to the findings in the paper and deserve recognition. It also documents their involvement in a particular activity so they could be contacted by other scientists peer-reviewing the article or working on similar projects. Generally, the names are listed in the order of their contributions to the article. A doctoral candidate will always show his/her advisor professor as a co-author on the dissertation.

Dear Prof. Prokopowicz!

You raised an important issue. I totally agree with you. Still in cases where the phenomena at hand is brand new, evolving and mysterious it is way more appropriate to form large research groups to join forces: disseminating new findings while receiving continuously feedback and providing possible sets of solutions. This is the case with COVID-19 pandemic. This killer virus stimulates a set of evolving multidimensional impacts on societies and multidisciplinary research is the best to reach quickly solutions across the globe:

1) Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Wall, T. et al. COVID-19: the impact of a global crisis on sustainable development research. Sustain Sci 16, 85–99 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00866-y Open Access:

Article COVID-19: the impact of a global crisis on sustainable devel...

2) Jaana I. Halonen et al. (2021). A call for urgent action to safeguard our planet and our health in line with the helsinki declaration, Environmental Research

Volume 193, February 2021, Open Access:

Article A call for urgent action to safeguard our planet and our hea...

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

Thank you for sharing this question

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz in our discipline (chemistry) multi-author papers are a necessity because several specialists are needed to fully characterize our newly synthesized compounds. Thus a normal research paper from our group has 3-5 co-authors. Most of the single-author papers which I published during my 40+ years of chemical research were review articles.

Please see cited below a complete list of all my published review articles.

Research List of Review Articles by Frank T. Edelmann

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz in this context please also see this interesting link entitled

"SHOULD I AIM FOR MULTIPLE CO-AUTHORSHIPS TO EXTEND MY PUBLICATION LIST?"

https://smartsciencecareer.com/multiple-coauthorships/

The authors come to the following conclusion: "Some or multiple co-authorships may promote scientific cooperation and mutual intellectual stimulation, extend your publication list and may close gaps in your publication history. Avoid to publish too many co-authorship papers (more than first/last authorships) and NEVER publish in predatory journals."

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz To my opinion, multidisciplinary papers get space in high impact journals which calls for association and cooperation among scientists for a common pursuit. The second, by associating coauthors work load for preparation and refinement of MS gets distributed among the researchers. The third, mutual cooperation also adds significantly the number of papers to the list. The fourth, publication cost gets reduced, or sometimes is totally borne by any coauthor who has no other role to play. And finally I agree with what Frank T. Edelmann has already narrated and referred to.

Thanks!

Dear Arbind K. Choudhary,

Yes you are right. There are many positive aspects to collaborative collaborative research and multi-author publishing.

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Multi-author publishing is associated with team research and may increase the visibility of scientific texts posted on various websites and scientific text indexing databases, which may result in an increase in the number of citations.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

This is the result of the very expensive cost of publication in the conference papers, open sources journals, and journals of Q1 - Q2. In my opinion, the price of publication more than 20 dollars for one author is predators. I remember a time when magazine editors paid royalties to authors, but not vice versa.

Collaboration of different disciplines necessitas collaborations. If we put on a paper with different expertise from medical, nursing, business, statistics. We are combining skills necessary to write a successful paper acceptable by journal editors.

Dear Ceyhun Ozgur,

Yes, scientific interdisciplinary cooperation, the development of scientific research in an interdisciplinary perspective can expand the possibilities of implementing innovative research processes and techniques, can generate new possibilities and solutions for research processes and enable the creation of new concepts of research projects and new research topics. Interdisciplinary research may increase the possibilities of solving key problems of the development of civilization.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Yes I agree with everything you said in your email

Dariusz

It depends on the field and subject: In experimental sciences only teams can perform serious research, so it is impossible not to publish in multi-author modality. In the field of Humanities, Philosophy, Theology and Law, to publish in multi-authored way means that you made only a part of the work. So it is non convenient for authors to do so.