Science has long moved beyond the popular image of the genius scholar toiling away in pipe-smoke-filled solitude. And as the scale and complexity of scientific investigation has forced it to become a team game, the authorship of scientific papers has expanded to reflect that.

Studies have shown that collaboration and interdisciplinarity frequently result in higher-quality publications and broader intellectual and societal impact. Teamworking also contributes to a more inclusive research culture in which scholars ¨C in particular, early-career researchers ¨C are valued and evaluated in just ways.

The social sciences and humanities (SSH), too, are increasingly being shaped by calls for collective endeavours to address so-called wicked problems: complex, global issues that require multiple perspectives. This has sparked the growth of multi-actor research projects and interdisciplinary journals. Correspondingly, it has led SSH scholars to gradually, if tentatively, embrace co-writing.

However, there remains a stark contrast between STEM and SSH disciplines in how co-authorship is valued. In fields such as anthropology, philosophy and literary studies, co-authoring has long been a contentious practice. That is particularly true when it comes to evaluation for hiring and promotion, which has traditionally seen single-authored work as a clearer indication of a scholar¡¯s abilities.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Some hiring committees at European institutions downgrade the value of co-authored pieces lest they give a candidate more credit than is their due. Others simplistically assume that if an article has two authors, each one must have done only half the work, giving it half the value of a single-authored paper.

Such logics create substantial barriers to multi-author research ¨C and to career advancement for those who dare to embrace it. Our own long experiences of transnational and multidisciplinary collaboration have inspired our research careers, but also led to real difficulties in receiving recognition for our co-authored work.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Many SSH researchers themselves are not equipped for the challenges posed by their diverse disciplinary traditions, varying publishing practices and institutions¡¯ persistent reliance on outmoded metrics. However, there are concrete ways for SSH researchers, both as authors and as evaluators, to maximise the benefits of co-authorship.

Our first piece of advice to co-authors is to be proactive and explicit about the value of co-authorship for your research and scholarly practice. In your applications for jobs and grants, highlight any high-impact outcomes it has led to: demonstrate how your work influences policy, advances knowledge or fosters cross-disciplinary innovation.

You should show that you have a reputation for excelling in collaborative research and writing, which will make you a valued team player at the hiring institution. Explain that being part of large, collaborative projects ¨C and securing grants for them ¨C is evidence of your ability to respond to funding agencies¡¯ demands for impactful, topical research.

Second, communicate in your applications as transparently as possible what each co-author contributed to a paper. You can refer for guidance to journals¡¯ authorship contribution statements; if no such statements exist, explain the type and extent of contribution you made, perhaps even providing the contact details of your co-authors, in case evaluators want to verify your claims.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Third, given that SSH fields have not yet established uniform practices for indicating a senior author within multi-author texts, make clear when and to what extent you were the primary intellectual driver of a project or publication. That is particularly important when you are not in the first-author position, such as when you are a senior scholar co-authoring with PhD students or early-career researchers. Many evaluators will understand the distinction and appreciate your contributions to mentoring the next generation of scholars.

Fourth, consider publishing some of your collaborative work in top-tier, high-impact journals. Collaborative research in well-regarded outlets can lead to more positive evaluations as these venues increase the work¡¯s visibility.

Fifth, design a personal publication strategy that includes diverse authorship types and diverse co-authors to counter potential bias against co-authored work and to demonstrate your ample research network. Balancing a multi-author portfolio with single-authored works illustrates that you are capable of both independent contributions and collaborative efforts.

For hiring committees, we recommend recognising and addressing both explicit and unacknowledged biases against co-authored publications. Advocate, formally and informally, for policies that recognise the value of collaborative work at your own institution, particularly if co-authorship guidelines are vague or unfavourable. Be clear about how co-authored work will be evaluated and, ideally, communicate this to the candidates beforehand, so that they can prepare their applications accordingly.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Finally, ask applicants to proactively address co-authorship, perhaps via an addendum to their application or in research portfolio documents. If questions around co-authorship arise during the evaluation process, do not immediately discard the application: give candidates the chance to address your doubts.

As long as it is undertaken ethically, collaborative research and writing must be encouraged and promoted. As the world becomes ever more complicated and fractious, we must collectively dismantle the barriers to novel modes of researching and writing that impactfully address society¡¯s most pressing problems.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

is research professor of social anthropology at the University of Bern, Switzerland. is associate professor of cultural anthropology at the University of Oulu, Finland. is supernumerary professor of English literature and culture at the Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany.