Algorithmic Evaluation and the Marginalization of Single Authorship in Management Science
Wei Meng

TL;DR
This paper critically examines how institutional evaluation mechanisms and collaboration incentives in management science marginalize single authorship, affecting academic diversity and intellectual independence.
Contribution
It introduces a three-dimensional causal model explaining the decline of single authorship and advocates for reforms in evaluation practices to restore academic autonomy.
Findings
Single authorship is marginalized by funding and review policies.
Collaboration incentives dilute responsibility and weaken originality.
Structural barriers hinder independent research in academia.
Abstract
The decline of single authorship in peer-reviewed journals within the current collaboration-oriented knowledge production framework has prompted deeper reflection on the shifting power structures in academic systems. This paper aims to explore the underlying institutional logic and evaluation mechanisms contributing to the marginalization of single-author research in the management field. It further investigates how the discourse of collaborative advantage conceals structural power redistribution and ideological disembedding. Through an analysis of authorship data from top-tier journals, a critical reading of institutional incentive texts, and an empirical review of authorial configurations, the study building on the work of Harzing, Wuchty, and Lariviere constructs a three-dimensional causal chain: collaboration incentives, responsibility dilution, and originality weakening. Findings…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
Topicsscientometrics and bibliometrics research · Management and Organizational Studies · Gender Diversity and Inequality
