On the causes and ramifications of multi-authorship in science

The objective of this work is to elucidate the causes and ramifications of multi-authorship in science by surveying researchers working in the field of Medical Physics. During the first 6 months of 2022, an anonymous survey was disseminated among 956 medical physicists working in Asia, Europe and North America. The survey participants were chosen by using their publications in professional journals. The number of responses to the survey questions varied from 186 (19.5%) to 249 (26%). The obtained responses indicated several important causes of multi-authorship in science. In particular, the respondents indicated the importance of the quid pro quo effect, division of labor, complimentary expertise, and potential bias against 1–2 author papers. The responses also indicated the important role of multi-authorship in developing professional networks and associated career advancement. The responses suggest that besides its potential to significantly increase number of publications, multi-authorship facilitates networking and associated career advancement of researchers. As a result, multi-authorship can be used as a tool to improve chances for promotion and tenure. The negative ramifications of multi-authorship can be dealt with by employing transparent policies to properly assign credit and responsibility for multi-author studies and to restrict number of coauthors except when multi-authorship is justified by the specific needs and/or multidisciplinary nature of the study.