WYMHM: "A total of 144 authors were listed - equating to a mean contribution of 36.3 words each."

Professor Fairbairn added: "No doubt all those named contributed to the research. However, I find it difficult to understand how 144 individuals, however close their working relationship, could be involved in writing it.

"I find it even more difficult to imagine how any assessment at all could be made of their contribution when it comes to awarding academic brownie points."

The problem is not new. In 1996, John Hudson, professor of economics at the University of Bath, produced a paper titled "Trends in multi-authored papers in economics".

He noted that while "the economist of the early postwar years was typically a solitary worker ... the economists of today are much more inclined to hunt in packs".

1 response
A lot of the time in scientific fields, "authorship" does not equate to having any part in the physical composition of the paper. You can perform analysis, lend a hand in the experiment, design or build equipment, plan the experiment, etc. For some projects, such as those in high-energy particle physics or whole organism genome sequencing, it takes teams of people to actually do the research. These "Big Science" projects are becoming more commonplace, and I do agree that it calls into question the whole concept of "writing" a scientific article. Even in small projects, some people get included as authors for questionable reasons. There was a survey in the Annals of Improbable Research some years ago that asked scientists what percentage of the papers that they are authors on they have actually read. The results were humorous and appalling at the same time.