We all have the challenge of developing intriguing research topics that will produce valuable results and appear to journal reviewers.
Do you think that new ideas from new collaborations are more valuable, or stable collaborations that last across several manuscripts?
Although there are some areas of inquiry for which scholars prefer to publish without collaborators, in most science and technology areas collaboration is inevitable because of the complexity and the amount of work to be done.
Regarding the original question, I think we need both: fresh ideas from new contacts (RG can be a good source for finding colleagues willing to collaborate) and a stable community of researchers/colleagues who you can trust and have shown responsibility, honesty and commitment to publish on the topics in front of us.
It's all in the mix.
Although there are some areas of inquiry for which scholars prefer to publish without collaborators, in most science and technology areas collaboration is inevitable because of the complexity and the amount of work to be done.
Regarding the original question, I think we need both: fresh ideas from new contacts (RG can be a good source for finding colleagues willing to collaborate) and a stable community of researchers/colleagues who you can trust and have shown responsibility, honesty and commitment to publish on the topics in front of us.
It's all in the mix.
Both types of collaboration are good. But it's a human tendency that when we find good co-authors, we tend to stick together for quite a while, for a few papers at least. But while some of us will readily take changes, most prefer to be safe and comfortable. Do you agree?
Both types of collaboration are good. We cannot handle many complicated issues involved in a research experiment, this is why we need collaboration.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics