Does solo publication still make sense? Single-authored publications have been essential to scientific progress but are now facing extinction
Valentí Rull

TL;DR
Solo-authored scientific papers are becoming rare but historically important, and preserving them is valuable for scientific progress.
Contribution
The paper highlights the declining trend of solo-authored publications and argues for their continued relevance and protection.
Findings
Solo papers have declined significantly over the last century.
Solo papers have historically been influential and disruptive in science.
Preserving solo papers is seen as beneficial for scientific innovation.
Abstract
Solo papers (SPs) have experienced a sustained decline over the last century, which has turned them into a residual publication type. However, SPs have traditionally been highly influential and disruptive, and efforts to protect them from extinction are worthwhile.
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2Peer 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
TopicsAcademic Publishing and Open Access · Medical Research and Practices · Academic Writing and Publishing
