I have just submitted revisions for my first single-author paper, and it was awful (pronounced with all the exaggerated fervor of a whiny millenial). Nothing triggers feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt more than making your own decisions about what should be included in the greater body of science. (Perhaps it triggers feelings of empowerment in others-- good for you!)
Since more eyes means catching more mistakes, better word choices for a wider readership, and overall more awareness of what's a good idea, I'm wondering if it is even good for science to publish solo-author work.
In question form: do single-author papers benefit scientific research as a whole? Or mostly just the individual's personal development as an author and independent researcher? It would be great if you could endorse your answer with some kind of study.