Over the past few weeks, I’ve rejected several essays on different topics for the same reason: They had two authors when they should have had one.

I understand why people want to co-byline. It can add to the authority, for instance, and it also gives you someone (besides your friendly neighborhood editor) to collaborate with.

But in these recent op-eds, sharing the byline ended up diluting the argument. In each case, one of the two authors had a deep personal connection to the topic, while the second author had more of an academic background. Pairing the personal and the evidence-based is great, until you want to talk about the personal element. Then you end up with the awkward: “One of us, Torie, has experienced this firsthand …”

There’s no good way to write about a personal experience in the third person. As a result, the story is often told briefly, focused on the facts, without going into the emotions or little details that can help a reader connect. Sometimes writers will just end up using “I” for an extended period, but that doesn’t work when there are two names on the piece.

So if personal experience is the selling point, consider writing solo.

It’s also worth noting that I generally cap the number of writers at three, unless the number of authors — like, say, eight former directors and acting directors of the CDC writing together to protect PEPFAR — is essentially part of the argument.

***

If you still don’t have a STAT+ subscription, you are missing out on reporting you can’t get anywhere else. We’ve got a great deal right now, though: Buy one year of STAT+, get one year free. Just imagine what STAT will be talking about in July 2028 …

Finally, I’m on vacation, so there won’t be a newsletter next week. I'll be back Tuesday, July 14. If you’re thinking of submitting a piece to me soon, I recommend waiting until I’m back. Maybe give me a couple of extra days to excavate the inbox, if you’re feeling compassionate.

Recommendation of the week: In the New Yorker, neurologist Adeline Goss examines the complicated case of Ray Howell, a doctor convicted of opioid-related crimes and accused of pressuring patients for sex in exchange for prescriptions. “Howell’s brain isn’t normal. It is so abnormal that it’s stored under neon lights in a refrigerated room at the University of California, San Francisco, and neurologists who have studied it are uncertain about who was responsible for these crimes: Ray Howell, or his disease,” Goss writes.