Algorithmic Evaluation and the Marginalization of Single Authorship in Management Science

Abstract

The decline of single authorship in peer-reviewed journals within the current collaboration-oriented knowledge production framework has prompted deeper reflection on the shifting power structures in academic systems. This paper aims to explore the underlying institutional logic and evaluation mechanisms contributing to the marginalization of single-author research in the management field. It further investigates how the discourse of collaborative advantage conceals structural power redistribution and ideological disembedding. Through an analysis of authorship data from top-tier journals, a critical reading of institutional incentive texts, and an empirical review of authorial configurations, the study building on the work of Harzing, Wuchty, and Lariviere constructs a three-dimensional causal chain: collaboration incentives, responsibility dilution, and originality weakening. Findings suggest that single authorship is not explicitly excluded but is gradually sidelined from central publication channels by funding policies, review practices, and performance metrics. Independent thought is thus structurally marginalized within institutionalized collaboration. The paper advocates for a paradigm shift from instrumental rationality to value-based rationality and calls for the restoration of legitimacy and public value for independent research through reforms in evaluation frameworks, journal governance, and research ethics, aiming to safeguard academic diversity and intellectual autonomy.