Discussion
Started 4 November 2018
Deleted profile
Is modern science based on collaboration and cooperation among different professional figures?
My answer to the question above is positive, that is modern science is mainly based on collaboration, and cooperation among different professional figures. In my view, this is made necessary from the exponential increase of data, knowledge, and information, which make science more and more specialistic.
However, there are many researchers who still believe in the single individual's contribution per se.
Does the contribution of the single individual, out of a research team, make sense yet? In which field of science, is it valid yet? What is your opinion, please?
Most recent answer
Sofia: "you for first have written the same identical concepts hundreds of times without never showing a minimum effort for changing or finding an alternative" - sorry, Sofia, but if I write something, I write it because this is what I think, this is my opinion, and I will not change it and say something else only to please you: I can (and certainly would!) change my views only when somebody convinces me (presents convincing arguments) to the contrary! Unfortunately you consistently avoid addressing my concrete questions (like how can you "escape" the "paragraf-22": either you write the paper alone, or I do, or we write it "jointly" and the result is incoherent, suboptimal? or why do you consider cooperation as synonymous with co-autorship?). Until you present your concrete counter-arguments, there is no reason for me to change my mind - of course I could say, "oh, well, Sofia, you are right because nice ladies always have right!"), but such discussion makes no sense! Until you (or somebody else) convinces me that I am wrong, I have only two options: to repeat "the same identical concepts" or to say nothing - I often choose the first option because I am incurable optimist: I always hope that at last you or somebody else kindly honours me with a concrete answer, concrete argumentation, instead or knocking the widely open door of the merits and desirablilty of cooperation or similar!
The same regards the examples from the past: everything what we know, so every example we can quote, is the "past" (even what I am just writing will be the past when you read it...), so to reject reference to the past you should present concrete arguments as to why do you consider e.g. Darwin's style of cooperation inappropriate today - irony like "Do you perhaps continue to write with the goose pen yet?" does not help (I could "counter-ask": do you use a supercomputer to calculate 6×8 because it is more modern than a multiplication table?).
Popular replies (1)
Gruppo Ricerca Geriatrica, Genova, Italy
Individual commitment to a group effort—that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.
Vince Lombardi
11 Recommendations
All replies (25)
Al-Quds Open University
Hi, continuous collaboration and cooperation among different professionals has been increasing for the reason you mentioned, and for the availability of different social media, and platforms that facilitated communication and interaction between researchers. The dissemination of knowledge and information via ICT tools encouraged professionals to share information and exchange expertise. Therefore, more team contributions are developed, which is more beneficial than single work in some researches. This can guarantee objectivity to ensure consistency, and avoids subjectivity.
1 Recommendation
It has always been - earlier there was more of the real cooperation (enough to see the earlier scientists' - e.g. Darwin's- correspondence), now prevail more "formal", "make-believe" "joint" projects, co-autorship &c.
2 Recommendations
Gruppo Ricerca Geriatrica, Genova, Italy
Individual commitment to a group effort—that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.
Vince Lombardi
11 Recommendations
Roman, as you know, we are not always in agreement about some ideas, and this is one of the cases. The comparison with the first great scientists, pioneers of modern science, is not applicable nowadays for the reasons I listed in my question above. Keeping a correspondence with someone is not equal to work together, side by side, for getting a common target. The problem of co-authorship, then, is only a false problem because, inside an honest, serious research team, all members concretely work and contribute, not writing letters one another as for first scientists did.
How can you think it is possible to carry out a multicentric, clinical trial, or a cohort study, or a case-control study, or other by yourself? You think inside your box, that is to say, basing your opinions on your own research field (morphological-descriptive) only, where, maybe, that is still possible.
Cooperation and collaboration, of course, play significant role, but no one has canceled rivalry. As in every branches of human activity, rivalry is also the driver of progress.
As for the sole author... Each article has usually one author (this is my statement). If 12 names are written under the heading , it does not mean that all they defined the goals and objectives of the article. Lot of "researchers" work artistically on specific equipments, but they cannot say a word about the essence of the results, i.e. how these results are consistent with the results of other experiments and what common conclusions can be drawn. Conversely, many researchers can only turn on the device (if "owner" allow them...), but brilliantly analyze the results of measurements. Therefore, in every work there is a leader, a locomotive, if you like, which practically defines tasks and comes up with methods that can give useful results. It is extremely rare that there are two such leaders (or even more). As we say in Russia - "two bears do not live in the same lair" ... As in any business - there is a Master, apprentices and workers. Although it is not always pronounced aloud and co-authors have lot of illusions. The talent of the master lies in the fact that the whole team feels the task as “their own”. People work well only if they think that it is their job.
3 Recommendations
Many thanks for your contribution, Vadim. I do not agree, but I have appreciated your considerations. Having ideas is not enough to be considered "the author". I know people with brilliant ideas but no skill to realize them. All people who contribute to the realization of the ideas must be considered authors at all effects. It matters little if they consider the job as their job or not. Then, science based on personal success is not a healthy science.
I told about the difference between a horse and a coachman. Many horses are confident that they choose a direction. But if they haven't this confidence, they would have stopped.
2 Recommendations
There are also other variables to be considered about the horses in the race and the coachman. For instance, the research aim is linked to the university's interests or to the provided funding. Hence, even the coachman is manipulated on the direction to take, at the end. In this case, is it the university or the sponsor the author?
2 Recommendations
I consider only the creative side. At the end of the track, both will receive money or oats. This is another problem.
As for my own practice, I always understand where the topic is "mine" and much depends on me, and where only my method is needed to solve someone else's problem (many times in such situations I was not a co-author of the final articles - more often at my will).
1 Recommendation
However, you are listed among the co-authors the same because, without your contribution, there would have been a lack of method in that research, which is not a small detail.
1 Recommendation
Sorry, I changed my answer while you were reading it. I will no longer write - it's time to walk with my dog (; -.
Nevertheless, I want to say that the real scientists (individuals) have not disappeared, they are just picking up a team. Political correctness requires us to recognize all team members as co-authors. That's right. But we should understand the role of each them, it is useful for themselves, first of all.
2 Recommendations
Nevertheless, I want to say that the real scientists (individuals) have not disappeared, they are just picking up a team.
Yes, that's true, Vadim! I agree with the statement above.
1 Recommendation
Sofia: Vadim, in fact, has already answered you, so I have little to add.
1) "Keeping a correspondence with someone is not equal to work together, side by side, for getting a common target" - I do not see much diference (at least as long as we are speaking of the conceptual aspects of "collaboration and cooperation"
- ideas, interpretations, conclusions - to me and apparently at least also to Vadim the only justifying your assertion that "modern science is based on" (and, by the way, qualifying to be considered the author).
2) Judging from the lists of "coauthors", acknowledgements &c., the members of the cooperating group (except those doing just "technical" work) do by far not always (I have not counted, but apparently rather rarely) "work together, side by side, for getting a common target" - this can be seen already looking at the addresses: one is from London, another from Shanghai, others from Warsaw, San Francisco or Caracas - exactly as in Darwin's time!
3) As I frequently argued, real coauthorship (especially with many "authors") is either impossible or detrimental to the quality of the resulting publication. Having discussed the same questions in another "thread" I illustrated my opinion with the following example:
"Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that we are writing a "co-authored" paper. Unless the topic is extremely simple and our ways of thinking, manners, preferences are extraordinarily similar, you would certainly write it not exactly as I would do: usually the difference would be very great. So, our "joint" paper would be written either by me (with your suggestions accepted only if I agree) or by you (with my preferences "at your mercy"), or in some cases of disagreement your, in others my suggestions will be accepted - in the first case I am the real author and you are only a "stowaway", in the second the opposite is true, while in the third an incoherent (compromise!) text is the result, not adequately reflecting either your or my views, nor optimally displaying advantages of either your or my style of presentation, i.e. inferior to both! So, let's cooperate, but writing (and signing!) of the resulting papers let's leave to one of us!"
You have (nor for the first time in our "correspondence"...) taken offence and attacked my views as "dictatorial" - I was completely astonished and did not understand what was the problem? Only later it came to my mind that you have probably misunderstood my last sentence as claim that in such cases always I should be consideed the author, what naturally would be a misinterpretation: I said only that the author should be "one of us", i.e. either I or you (according to which of usdecided to write the paper.
4) "How can you think it is possible to carry out a multicentric, clinical trial, or a cohort study, or a case-control study, or other by yourself" - I do not know much about clinical studies, perhaps it is indeed impossible (as it is also in my speciality...), but (sorry I must repeat again and again) cooperation is one, coauthorship is another thing!
5) Also different questions are what is demanded by "political correctness" or other factors independent upon us, and what is correct from the scientific point of view (or in other words: what we must do and what we consider good)!
1 Recommendation
Roman, it is useless to continue to answer to rebut your statements. You and I are on two different planets, with two different points of views. None of us will change his/her mind. You continue to refuse to admit that cooperation means concretely working together, and co-authorship is only a way to show who has worked and contributed to reaching a common aim. You do prefer to look at the past as the best solution, I do prefer to look at future. Likely, Vadim and you have more aspects in common than with me. For instance, have both you lived in a very similar/equal social context ? Anyway, many thanks for your always present contribution.
Sofia Cividini
: These are scary words about a "similar / equal social context". Pan Roman is Pole and I am Russian. You cannot imagine anything more diverse (;-/. By the way, I have a few friends in Italy and we fully understand each other (although they rate my Italian as "voce di gatto", but I do not take offense because it is true)... As for the topic of discussion, indeed, Roman and I support much closer (but not identical) points of view. In addition, not anybody needs to look for a common context here. It is just the result of our independent thinking as well as experience. However, it disagrees with your views very much, but I do not think it can be linked to any context.
2 Recommendations
Vadim S. Gorshkov
My words did not want to be offensive or scary as you say. I based myself on what Roman has said a lot of times in his posts referring to a specific social context. Now, I wrote it as a question. I believe that there are many factors that influence opinions and ideas, and social-working context is one of them. Do you believe that a working context is not a social context, perhaps? RG itself is a social context, as well. Social context is not necessarily linked to a political context. However, my thread does not have the aim of arousing controversy. Hence, please, accept my apologies for my comment.
Yes, of course, our way to view things is very different, but I do not see anything wrong in that, whatever the influencing factors are.
Best regards.
2 Recommendations
Sofia Cividini
: I'm sorry, my emotional reaction was wrong, especially in this case.
1 Recommendation
Jouf University
This is the age of collaboration and cooperation in scientific research . Interdisciplinary research is the best example for this cooperation.
2 Recommendations
Sofia: "it is useless to continue to answer to rebut your statements" - does a discussion not mean answering one another's statements? By the way, I do not wish you to continue answering my statements, I would only be happy if you start answering my concrete arguments and questions instead of repeating irrelevant allusions to "social contexts", "looking at future" &c.! I am interesting here only in scientific context and looking at present day situation (see also my comment in your other "thread" ("Are peer-reviewers' comments really reliable?")!
Unfortunately, along with the "team" work, a complete degradation of the culture of discussions is characteristic of modern science. I think these circumstanses are connected. Is whatever were published is nice and good? Nobody writes objections (over the past 15 years I have read only one discussion, which quickly disappeared). Maybe nobody pay for it? I remember the Russian comedian Raikin, in one performance he asked the question: "Who sewed on the buttons?" and received a multi-voiced response: "We!". I think that meaningful questions are not asked precisely because the team response is known in advance: “It's not me! - It is teamwork"....
2 Recommendations
Roman, I wrote that way because you for first have written the same identical concepts hundreds of times without never showing a minimum effort for changing or finding an alternative. Your speech seems a broken disk. The song is always the same! It is your attitude to stop the discussion, not mine. You are right, and all the others are wrong if they do not share your thought. Hence, the only thing I can do is to take note of your opinion and stop me here. You continue to compare the present situation with the remote past (Darwin, Lamarck, Newton, Galileo, and so on). Do you perhaps continue to write with the goose pen yet? I simply follow (or, to say it better, I force myself to follow) your rationale. That's all! The quotation marks you have written in another "thread", then, is another symbol of your 'bully' attitude. After all, it is you to participate. You are free to not do it. Everyone who does not share your opinion or expresses an opinion different from yours is wrong or understands nothing. Have you ever asked yourself sometimes if maybe who is wrong is you?
PS: I also remind you that, in one of my thread, right you and Mr. Buckley, above all, have rowed to send to the nettles an interesting discussion on a relevant issue. I have also received a private message of solidarity from one of the participating people.
Sofia: "you for first have written the same identical concepts hundreds of times without never showing a minimum effort for changing or finding an alternative" - sorry, Sofia, but if I write something, I write it because this is what I think, this is my opinion, and I will not change it and say something else only to please you: I can (and certainly would!) change my views only when somebody convinces me (presents convincing arguments) to the contrary! Unfortunately you consistently avoid addressing my concrete questions (like how can you "escape" the "paragraf-22": either you write the paper alone, or I do, or we write it "jointly" and the result is incoherent, suboptimal? or why do you consider cooperation as synonymous with co-autorship?). Until you present your concrete counter-arguments, there is no reason for me to change my mind - of course I could say, "oh, well, Sofia, you are right because nice ladies always have right!"), but such discussion makes no sense! Until you (or somebody else) convinces me that I am wrong, I have only two options: to repeat "the same identical concepts" or to say nothing - I often choose the first option because I am incurable optimist: I always hope that at last you or somebody else kindly honours me with a concrete answer, concrete argumentation, instead or knocking the widely open door of the merits and desirablilty of cooperation or similar!
The same regards the examples from the past: everything what we know, so every example we can quote, is the "past" (even what I am just writing will be the past when you read it...), so to reject reference to the past you should present concrete arguments as to why do you consider e.g. Darwin's style of cooperation inappropriate today - irony like "Do you perhaps continue to write with the goose pen yet?" does not help (I could "counter-ask": do you use a supercomputer to calculate 6×8 because it is more modern than a multiplication table?).
Similar questions and discussions
In your opinion, what is the greatest role of international scientific organizations?
In your opinion, what is the greatest role, function, importance, etc. of the development of international scientific cooperation?
International scientific cooperation plays an important role in the development of science and scientific research. In recent years, the development of online knowledge bases, online indexing databases of scientific publications, online science portals facilitates the development of international scientific cooperation. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the scale of remote communication conducted via the Internet increased significantly. The scale of realization of scientific conferences and symposia remotely through online video conferencing platforms has increased. With online science portals enabling discussions, the development of scientific cooperation on an international scale has been facilitated. Thanks to the aforementioned online science portals, i.e. this Research Gate portal, it is possible to set up and operate international research teams, where researchers and scientists operating in different countries can conduct collaborative scientific research, exchange experiences from their research, jointly publish the results of their research work in scientific articles and monographs. I hereby inform you that I am open to scientific cooperation, including scientific cooperation carried out internationally. I invite you to publish the results of the conducted scientific research in a scientific journal:
"International Journal of Legal Studies" (ISSN 2543-7097):
Legal sciences, normative aspects of various issues, various issue described in normative terms:
Publisher: International Institute of Innovation "Science - Education - Development" in Warsaw
"International Journal of Legal Studies" is a scientific journal published semi-annually (semiannual). After the publication of each issue of the journal, all articles are posted in a number of databases for indexing of scientific publications in the formula of open access. This significantly increases the visibility of articles on the Internet and translates into higher citability.
I invite you to join me in scientific cooperation.
I invite you to contact me by email: darprokop111@gmail.com
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
In your opinion, what is the greatest role, function, importance, etc. of the development of international scientific cooperation?
In your opinion, what is the greatest role of international scientific organizations?
What do you think about this topic?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Warm regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Related Publications
The Acta Cryst. F - Structural Biology Communications Editors explain how important international collaborations are in science and structural biology.
A variety of studies were considered necessary to better understand the etiology of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Apoptosis of platelets and megakaryocytes were strong proposals, calling for collaboration. Some groups want to study microparticles and thombin generation in order to understand the variation of the bleeding tendency in patients...
