Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers

The global number of papers in different areas has increased over the years. Additionally, changes in academic production scenarios, such as the decrease in the relative number of single-authored (SA) papers, have been observed. Thus, the aims of this study are to assess the trend of SA papers in four subareas of biology and also to estimate the year when 0.1 % of papers in these subareas will be SA (considering two adjusted models). The subareas investigated were Ecology, Genetics, Zoology and Botany. Our hypothesis is that all subareas show a decay in the number of SA papers. However, this pattern is more pronounced in subareas that were originally interdisciplinary (Genetics and Ecology) than in disciplinary areas (Zoology and Botany). In fact, SA papers have declined over the years in all subareas of biology, and according to the best model (Akaike Criteria), the first area that will have 0.1 % SA papers is Genetics, followed by Ecology. A partial regression indicates that the decrease in SA papers can be related to the increase in the number of authors and number of citations, suggesting the greater scientific impact of interdisciplinary research. However, other variables (e.g., political, linguistic and behavioral) can contribute to the decrease in SA papers. We lastly conclude that the number of SA papers in all subareas of biology in the coming years might continue decreasing and becoming rare, perhaps even to the point of extinction (to use a very common term in biology). In addition, all subareas of biology have become more interdisciplinary, combining the knowledge of various authors (and perhaps authors from different areas). The consequence of this approach is increasingly collaborative work, which may facilitate the increased success of the group.

[1]  J. Hanspach,et al.  Academia's obsession with quantity. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  Ding-wei Huang,et al.  Correlation between impact and collaboration , 2011, Scientometrics.

[3]  D. King The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.

[4]  David P. Hamilton Publishing by--and for?--the numbers. , 1990, Science.

[5]  D. Price Little Science, Big Science , 1965 .

[6]  R. Julliard,et al.  Local and management variables outweigh landscape effects in enhancing the diversity of different taxa in a big metropolis , 2013 .

[7]  D. Richardson,et al.  Hitting the right target: taxonomic challenges for, and of, plant invasions , 2013, AoB Plants.

[8]  R. Barré,et al.  S&T Indicators for Policy Making in a Changing Science-Society Relationship , 2004 .

[9]  José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho,et al.  Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles , 2010, Scientometrics.

[10]  I. Kinchin Visualising knowledge structures in biology: discipline, curriculum and student understanding , 2011 .

[11]  B. Penders,et al.  Understanding life together: A brief history of collaboration in biology , 2013, Endeavour.

[12]  Alan L. Mackay,et al.  Publish or perish , 1974, Nature.

[13]  I. Guarniero How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? (PLOS Biology) , 2014 .

[14]  F. M. Carneiro,et al.  Trends in the scientific literature on phytoplankton , 2008, Limnology.

[15]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[16]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[17]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship , 2004 .

[18]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Coauthorship Patterns and Trends in the Sciences (1980-1998): A Bibliometric Study With Implications for Database Indexing and Search Strategies , 2002, Libr. Trends.

[19]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time , 2009, Scientometrics.

[20]  M. Blaxter,et al.  Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing , 2011, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[21]  E. Tjørve Shapes and functions of species–area curves: a review of possible models , 2003 .

[22]  Christian Schlötterer,et al.  The evolution of molecular markers — just a matter of fashion? , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[23]  L. de Meis,et al.  The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. , 2003, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.

[24]  John Whitfield,et al.  Collaboration: Group theory , 2008, Nature.

[25]  Patrice Laget,et al.  Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU , 2008, Scientometrics.

[26]  Helmut A. Abt,et al.  The future of single-authored papers , 2007, Scientometrics.

[27]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Scientific Teams and Institution Collaborations: Evidence from U.S. Universities, 1981-1999 , 2004 .

[28]  J. D. Tardós,et al.  Publish or Perish , 1987 .

[29]  María Bordons,et al.  Analysis of Cross-Disciplinary Research Through Bibliometric Tools , 2004 .

[30]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[31]  C. Mora,et al.  How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? , 2011, PLoS biology.

[32]  M. Holmgren,et al.  Science on the Rise in Developing Countries , 2004, PLoS biology.

[33]  K. B. Machado,et al.  Trends and Biases in Global Climate Change Literature , 2012 .

[34]  John Hudson,et al.  Trends in Multi-authored Papers in Economics , 1996 .