Theoretically, there should be as few restrictions as possible in such matters in the world of science. Science should develop in an unhampered way. Whether less restrictions and regulations can be developed to a greater extent by innovative solutions.
On the other hand, the more authors who have written a specific publication together, the more difficult it is to objectively evaluate the contribution of individual co-authors to the creation of a specific publication. There are several pages of scientific articles that have been written by over 100 authors. Usually, these are also members of research teams for large-scale research projects.
In addition, in the last dozen or so years, research has shown that the quantitative proportion of single-author scientific texts is falling relative to the total of scientific publications being produced. Therefore, more scientific multi-authorial publications have been created in recent years in comparison to single-author ones. What are the reasons?
In the light of the above, the following questions arise:
Why do more and more scientists prefer to publish in multi-author scientific texts than single-author ones? Is the main determinant of the increase of established research teams, whose members conduct similar or the same research projects and jointly publish research results?
In addition, new questions arise in connection with the development of new information technologies:
What is the importance of using the internet to popularize scientific knowledge? Does online information globalization have its share in this matter? Can publication in multi-author texts increase the scope in terms of popularizing specific scientific knowledge, developed new research concepts, results of research carried out, etc. using new online media, including online science portals? Is this the probability of developing scientific cooperation on a national, but also international and global scale? Are there any opportunities for the citation of scientific publications?
Do you agree with me on the above matter?
In the context of the above issues, I am asking you the following question:
Why do more and more scientists prefer to publish in multi-author scientific texts than single-author ones?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Best wishes
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 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.
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.
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
From my opinion, every additional coauthor adds additional credit to the work.
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)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication