Many lead authors will have experienced the situation where they invite colleagues to be co-authors on a paper because of their expertise and the contribution they could make, only to find these co-authors do little or nothing to help with the hard work of structuring, drafting and revising the manuscript and responding to the comments of editors and reviewers. An obvious solution is to simply remove such people from the author list, but this can be risky and difficult for all sorts of reasons. I would be very interested to hear of your experiences of what works and what doesn't work by way of trying to get the best out of your co-authors.
I think this depends a lot on the details of the paper and the area in which you're writing. In some cases, each person's job is very clear-cut; for example, if I'm collaborating with someone who doesn't have the same technological expertise as me in the method that we're using, then it is kind of a given that I'll do the analysis and write up the results, whereas s/he might do intro and discussion sort of stuff. In other cases it's less clear-cut who should be doing what; in those cases I think the best thing you can do is force it to be more clear-cut, by explicitly discussing who should do what. (e.g., "ok, i'll write up this part of the discussion; X, can you do a section in the discussion about this other aspect? and Y, can you check our literature review to see if there's anything missing?") If people have clearly defined tasks, they're less likely to procrastinate on it forever.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals