Research can be defined as a collaborative effort. Rarely, do you see the best scientific papers or articles published by single authors. Some of the best published work includes a long list of authors, who all played important roles in the various stages of the research or writing the manuscript.
This is especially true with the rise of multidisciplinary research, which requires authors of diverse expertise to support and complement each other. This provides a chance for authors to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. Each person can focus on their expertise, making the process efficient and effective.
However, there are several controversies associated with authorship. One of the most important aspects of authorship is contribution. This describes what each author of the paper added to the combined effort that resulted in the published paper.
Often, senior authors who did not make any significant contributions may be included as co-authors, whereas junior authors who qualify for co-authorship are left out. This is an ethical issue. It is typically based on the abuse of power or authority in academia. However, sometimes it's because the question of authorship can be tricky.
In this article, I discuss how authorship is defined and how scholars and academics can take advantage of it. Read on to learn more.
What qualifies as co-authorship in a journal paper?
First, before finding the right co-author, you should have a full understanding of what co-authorship entails. While an author enjoys the credit and prestige of having a paper published, they also share responsibility for any issues regarding the integrity or accuracy of the data and its interpretation.
Rules for authorship are more or less based on the unspoken consensus that you are willing to bear the responsibility for writing, revising, and correcting a published paper. Nonetheless, although there are main principles for establishing authorship, journals may vary in their requirements and definitions of journalism authorship.
The guidelines for defining authorship are based, according to COPE, on the Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which also goes by "the Vancouver group." Their guidelines of 2001 are still relevant:
Authorship credit should be based only on: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions (1), (2), and (3) must all be met. Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.
A person qualifies as an author if they made a significant contribution to the paper being published. This contribution may include the conception of the study, the research design, data collection, and analysis.
Here’s a list of other contributions that qualify someone for authorship. A combination of two or more means that you have the right to be deemed author or co-author:
Agreed on the target journal for article submission
Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission
Reviewed and agreed on article versions during revision and the final version that is accepted for publication
Agree to accept responsibility and accountability for the article’s results and implications
Agree to share responsibility for resolving any issues related to the published work’s accuracy or integrity
The extent to which these criteria are met by any individual authors cannot be verified. So, they typically serve as little more than recommendations that authors of integrity have an unspoken commitment to.
There are instances when authors are tempted to attach their names to papers without making any significant contribution, as described above.
However, this is an unethical practice. Moreover, authorship entails accepting responsibility to answer questions and provide corrections. So, an author should also be willing to share this responsibility.
The different levels of authorship
Different levels of authorship relate to the level of seniority, extent of contribution, and responsibility for communicating with the target journal. There are three categories in which authors can fall. They include:
First author
Senior author
Corresponding author
The most important author is usually related to the level of contribution. This means that the most important author with the highest level of contribution will be named first when citing the paper. So the placement of authors represents a kind of descending order of relevance, with the least important author being the last.
However, there are instances when the last author mentioned is the “senior author.” This is usually where there are multiple authors and the senior researcher is the head of a major lab. Let’s look at the detailed meaning of each level of authorship.
First author
The first author is the author who makes the greatest contribution to the research. This could mean contribution in terms of conceiving the work conceptually and putting arrangements in place to execute the research design.
The co-authors will help the first author in terms of specific tasks. However, the first author is ultimately responsible for collecting and analyzing the data and writing the manuscript.
There is much prestige associated with being the first author. This is because the first author will be mentioned every time the paper is cited, regardless of the number of others who make up the list of authors.
First authors are usually denoted by an asterisk or other symbol located in superscript position after their last name (e.g., “Author A*, Author B, Author C, Author D..”), which is then explained as a footnote on the first page.
Corresponding author
The corresponding author is a type of administrative position in relation to the journal. They are responsible for answering any questions relating to the integrity or accuracy of their research.
In addition, it is obligatory that their institutional email is made publicly available. This also means that member of the general public interested in their work can also email them about any questions regarding the published paper.
There is usually no extra level of prestige associated with this position. The corresponding author is also an important position regarding the relationship between master’s and Ph.D. students and their advisors. In most cases, when a master’s thesis or a Ph.D. dissertation is turned into a research paper to be published, the advisor automatically gets put down as the corresponding author.
Senior author
The senior author may be the head of the lab responsible for pulling or arranging the resources that even allow the research to be carried out in the first place. In very ambitious papers with a massive author list, the senior researcher is usually mentioned last to make their position prominent.
Co-authors after the first and second
As mentioned earlier, the first author is the most important author, with the second coming just after. The author after that ranked in descending order of importance.
It is quite normal for a paper to have a long list of authors, as research is typically a collaborative effort. However, journals, such as those associated with the Web of Science, usually have strict standards relating to what qualifies someone to be an author.
Co-authorship and reputation
Researchers seek co-authorship of papers because it enhances their reputation. High-end journals that are indexed by scientific databases such as the Web of Science place great importance on the number of papers published by authors. It is of course a matter of prestige. The more papers published by an author and the more often that author is cited, the higher the scholarly reputation of that author.
In fact, the Web of Science has a measurement known as the h-index, which measures the value and importance of scholars based on the number of papers they have published and how often that author is cited by other authors. However, it doesn’t stop here.
The ability of scholars to obtain funding or promotions in higher education institutions is often tied to their ability to publish high-quality papers in journals indexed by the Web of Science. Therefore, authorship is vital for both the professional reputations and careers of most researchers.
In this article, we discuss the best strategy to locate ideal co-authors for research meant in high-end journals, the ethical implications of co-authorship, and its various advantages.
The advantages of co-authorship and collaboration
Co-authorship is highly valued in modern research publishing culture. There are two reasons for this. First, policymakers have shifted from funding individual researchers to funding groups.
This is because of the increasing recognition that a higher number of experts equates with an increased likelihood of effectiveness, productivity, and innovation. This has resulted in research being implemented through research units composed of different types of expertise from various sectors.
Secondly, the public is demanding more problem-focused research. A lot if not most research is funded by public institutions. This has resulted in the general public demanding that their public funds (or taxpayer money) go toward problem-solving research.
Thus, researchers who conduct theoretical scientific research may find themselves pairing or collaborating with other researchers from economic or sociological disciplines, who are more likely to justify or give credibility to the “public utility of this type of research.
Alot of emphasis is placed on collaboration where co-authors are from diverse backgrounds in terms of discipline, age, gender, nationality, academic seniority, and so on. This is the case because the ability to work across diverse boundaries is likely to involve the ability to integrate theories, techniques, and data in innovative ways.
This is the basis of the advantages that come with diverse collaboration and co-authorship. Let’s look at these advantages:
1. Diverse co-authorship gives credibility to problem-solving
As mentioned earlier, public funding has shifted toward problem-solving issues that the public are aware of. This means research grant proposals that pair capable scientists with experts in economics and other social sciences will have more credibility in the eyes of those who give grants.
This is because policy-based research typically involves large projects with multiple components, which may require multi-disciplinary teams. Many papers published in this way are the results of these research projects. Publishing such work would involve medium to large teams of individuals who have expertise in fields that are widely apart in terms of discipline.
Proposing grants that include diverse co-authors in terms of discipline will end credibility to your team’s ability to complete this research. Also, papers submitted to journals will include more convincing analyses and insights if professionals and experts across the relevant disciplines are allowed to make contributions. That is especially true if you decide to include co-authors who have already been published in the target journal you wish to submit to.
2. Diverse co-authorship promotes DEI values
Scholarship is becoming more and more diverse. However, this is not typically reflected in the rate at which non-Western scholars are published in high-end Web of Science journals and other prestigious journals. For example, studies have shown an under-representation of scholars from developing countries even regarding research that is conducted in developing countries.
Diverse co-authorship can provide scholars from developing countries to participate and be represented in research. Also, it makes sense that researchers from developing countries would be in better positions to provide unique insights about the problems facing their regions.
Lastly, working with co-authors from these developing countries provides an opportunity for a win-win situation. Researchers from developing countries can benefit from the first-hand experience and unique insights of these “local” researchers. On the other hand, these local researchers can benefit from the greater level of resources and experience or expertise that experts from developed countries bring.
3. Diverse co-authorship leads to productive delegation
Most researchers are experts in a narrow specialty or field. This limits their credibility in other areas of research. The editors of some journals may not be convinced that an expert specializing in a specific field is credible enough to be published in a journal famous for specializing in an entirely different field. This is simply the natural bias that may exist in the journal publication industry.
With authors belonging to multidisciplinary teams, their credibility increases. It is not simply a matter of a perception of credibility. Successful collaborative research does indeed result in more productive work. In a large project with multiple components, each researcher has the chance to focus on their areas of specialty or expertise.
This would result in productivity gains based on the proper division of labor and the delegation of tasks to those who are most qualified to conduct them. In short, diverse co-authorship leads to a smoother project management process.
4. Diverse co-authorship can be cost-effective
Collaboration may result in a diverse set of researchers and skills who complement each other. This means that the need to hire outside help or services may be eliminated since co-authors already possess skillsets, which you would otherwise have to contract out.
For example, some authors usually have to pay exorbitant fees to have their journal articles properly edited often by journal editing services. Bringing on a co-author with specialized writing or editing abilities may eliminate the need to pay for such services.
5. Collaboration and co-authorship results in synergy
When different researchers of different abilities and disciplines come together it results in synergy. Synergy refers to interactions or cooperation that result in a whole that is greater than the mere sum of its parts.
This is especially true at the institutional level. Co-authors working across institutions can rely on the institutional strength and specialties of their respective departments to successfully carry out research projects and the research papers that result from these projects.
For example, a co-author from a department famous for delivering impressive labwork can benefit from a co-author from another department that excels in project management.
What to look for in a co-author
An appropriate co-author is typically someone who has already been published in peer-reviewed journals with high standing, such as journals associated with the Web of Science.
Ideally, an author with a high h-index according to the Web of Science would be preferable. However, this is only one metric. Here are a list of authors to look out for when deciding your choice of co-authorship:
Authors whose strengths complement your weaknesses
Authors who are open to collaboration
Authors who show promise in terms of research ability
Authors who are located in countries or regions that are the subject of your study
Authors who show promise as master’s or PhD candidates
More importantly, it would be best if you went for authors who appreciate and understand the importance of collaboration and who are willing to work together harmoniously to get things done.
Final thoughts on co-authorship
Finding the right co-author could be as simple as looking up papers in journals indexed in the Web of Science on topics that you are interested to find authors who have already published on these topics. You don’t always have to rely on authors who publish in high-end journals.
Sometimes it makes sense to rely on promising young scholars who have only published gray literature, such as conference reports or theses. The whole point of co-authorship is to collaborate with those whose strengths complement your weaknesses.
In addition, it provides a chance for senior scholars or scholars in advantageous positions to support other researchers across various boundaries. For example, senior scholars can support junior scholars with less experience.
Well-funded and well-resourced researchers in the West can collaborate with scholars from the South who have limited resources but the same research abilities. This dynamic would lead to more productive, insightful, and interesting research.
List of cited works
Albert, T. & Wager, E. (2003). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1
Astuti et al. (2024). LSE Principles of Authorship. /https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/services/Policies-and-procedures/Assets/Documents/priOfAut.pdf
Taylor and Francis. Defining authorship in your research paper. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/editorial-policies/defining-authorship-research-paper/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20a%20named,or%20critically%20reviewed%20the%20article.
Web of Science: h-index information. https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Web-of-Science-h-index-information?language=en_US
Cite this EminentEdit article |
Antoine, M. (2024, August 08). Understanding Coauthorship. https://www.eminentediting.com/post/understanding-co-authorship |
Comments