Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing

Abstract The near-disappearance of single-author publications in scientific literature represents one of the most dramatic shifts in academic publishing over the past two decades. While this trend is often attributed to increased scientific collaboration and research complexity, substantial evidence suggests that systemic publication pressures and metric-based evaluation systems have created incentives for "strategic co-authorship"—practices including honorary authorship, gift authorship, and publication cartels that violate established authorship criteria. This article synthesizes empirical evidence documenting the decline of single-author publications, the prevalence of authorship misconduct, and the systemic drivers underlying these practices. Drawing on bibliometric analyses, prevalence surveys, and studies of academic culture, evidence-based synthesis indicates that addressing authorship requires fundamental reforms to institutional assessment systems, enhanced editorial vigilance, and cultural change in how the academic community values research contributions. The integrity of the scientific record depends on honest attribution of intellectual work, yet current incentive structures systematically undermine this foundational principle.