Many multi-authored papers simply list authors alphabetically without any connotation of relative contribution in the presented order.
In multi-authored papers, the use of weA forms is more common in mental processes than in material processes.
Interdisciplinary studies can produce multi-authored papers, which means that the old standard of primary authorship is often inappropriate for interdisciplinary scholars.
Overall there is some evidence that passive use has declined for multi-authored papers, although this is clearer in Series A than in Series B. This is supported by an increase in the use of active verbs with first person pronoun subjects in Series A multi-authored papers.
If one looks at multi-authored papers only, then in 1985, in the Series A articles, a weA or Pwe material process occurs on average once every 8.3 finite clauses, and once every 8.0 clauses in 1995.
Modern science is dominated by multi-authored publications [1], yet there is no consensus on how to allocate authorship credit for multi-authored papers [2].
In is susceptible to clustering of extremely multi-authored papers in an institution.
Another problem is how to deal with multi-authored papers.
The number of multi-authored papers resulting from joint projects peaked at 10 in the last decade, highlighting increased Nordic collaboration.
In an era of large collaborations, multi-authored papers, and enormous datasets, is there still room for the single creative idea that proves to be a game-changer?
For example, one researcher described a scenario whereby a colleague opted not to join an interdisciplinary research team, as his department did not recognize the contribution of multi-authored papers in the tenure and promotion process.
