Co authorship and attribution

connecting you with information, support and your community

Co-authorship and Attribution

Jenny Delasalle (Library) & Janet Goodall (Education)

1. Naming conventions for authors

2. Benefits and pitfalls of co-authorship

3. Tools and tips to make co-authorship successful!


Finch report

• “The rise in the no. of articles published by UK authors has not been as fast as in the very high-growth countries such as India and Brazil…”

• UK researchers are also more likely than those in almost any other major research nation to collaborate with colleagues overseas: almost half (46%) of the articles published by UK authors in 2010 included a non-UK author.”


US authorship trends

Science fieldAverage no. of authors per journal article in 2008

Percentage change 1988 to 2008

Astronomy 5.9 136Medical sciences 5.6 56Biological sciences 5.3 61Physics 5.3 61Average for all 'science' fields

4.7 52

Chemistry 4.3 39Agricultural sciences 4.3 59Geosciences 4.0 67Engineering 3.8 52Other life sciences 3.2 60Psychology 3.2 60Computer sciences 3.0 58Mathematics 2.0 33Social sciences 1.9 36


Who is an author?- Vancouver protocols for co-authorship

Authorship credit should be based on all of these:

1. substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis of and interpretation of data;

2. drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

3. final approval of the version to be published.

All should be able to defend the paper (though not all technical aspects).


Other types of authorship

• Gift – credit as a tribute, or a “ploy for recognition”, often because it is expected, eg head of the lab.

• Guest – inclusion of their name increases likelihood of publication/citation.

• Ghost – contributions not acknowledged, eg paid writers, commercial partners or a case of plagiarism. BUT lack of guarantee.

• Mutual support – sharing authorship to increase each others’ apparent productivity.


Authors attributed?

• Alphabetical list (Declining in science, but used in Mathematics & Economics). Sometimes a reverse alphabetical list!

• Contribution based – sometimes results in incidental alphabetical order. Also: “Smith J with Morrison J”

• Mixed: some authors in alphabetical order, eg the middle or contributing authors.

• First authorship is sometimes shared, eg: “Smith J(*), Morrison J(*), Munoz R. Title, journal, etc. (*) equal authorship”

• Last author: head of the unit, PI. “Senior author”• < 6 authors & last author are visible in the citation, in APA.• Can also use “Acknowledgements”• Failure to agree authorship contribution renders a paper

unpublishable!


Role of the corresponding author

• Often this is the first author, but not always: can be a way of sharing credit.

• Sometimes a corresponding author signs on behalf of all: sometimes each co-author must sign.

• The first or corresponding author should have final say on authors order?

• Liaise with journal editor• Ensure that all co-authors see & can contribute to successive

drafts.• Available for contact from readership.


Journals requiring statements of contribution

• “We ask all authors, and all contributors to specify their individual contributions at the end of the text.”

• “Please insert here the contribution each author made to the manuscript—eg, literature search, figures, study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing etc. If all authors contributed equally, please state this. The information provided here must match the contributors’ statement in the manuscript.”

• (The Lancet)


Collaboration and co-authorship

• With industry – publication good for them? Goal of collaboration/co-authorship?

• Other researchers – own discipline, or other disciplines? – Practices vary: peer review in the Arts can take upwards

of 6 months.• Building a research partnership or a publication strategy?!• Agreement on what to publish & where• Agreement on percentage contributions/word counts and

deadlines: balance of skills and knowledge.• Allow time!• Acknowledging contributions: variety of practice• Negotiation skills!

• Co-authorship and the REF


Finding a co-author

• Might begin with finding a collaborator, or:• Are your findings significant enough for a whole paper?

– Is there someone whose work relates to yours, where you have both researched separately but could write up your findings together?

• Where to look:– Institutional repositories like WRAP– Profile pages on department websites – Tools like Research Match– Attend events & talk to people!

• How are you going to respond to invitations from others?


Co authorship

Janet Goodall


• Goodall, J., Montgomery, C., (In Press), Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum, Educational Review • Goodall, J., Goodall, K., Williams, E., "Pagan prayer and worship: a qualitative study of perceptions"(Submitted to

Pomegranate, under review).• Goodall, J. (In Press - 2013). "Parental Belief and Parental Engagement: How Do They Interact?" The Journal of Beliefs and

Values 34.• Goodall, J. (2013) “Recruit for attitude, train for skills: Creating high performing leadership teams”. Educational, Management

and Leadership, 41.2• Goodall, J. (2012) Parental Engagement to Support Children’s Learning: A Six Point Model, School Leadership and

Management• Goodall, J., and Williams, E., (2012) "Paradigmatic Brilliance: Or, So Sparkly It's Broken", Journal of Dracula Studies• Goodall, J., and Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department of Education• Hargreaves, A., Harris,A. Boyle,A. Ghent, K Goodall,J. and. Gurn.A (2011). Performance Beyond Expectations. London:

National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services and Specialist Schools and Academies Trust .• Goodall, J., (2010) “Superstition and Human Agency”, Implicit Religion, Vol 13, No. 3 • Chapman, Lindsay, Muijis, Harris, Arweck, Goodall, (2010), “Governance, leadership, and management in federations of

schools”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 21, No. 1, pgs 53 - 74• Harris, A., Goodall, J., (2009), “Helping Families Support Children’s Success at School; Review of the evidence” Save the

Children• Harris, A., Allen, A., Goodall, J. (2008) “Capturing Transformation: How schools secure and sustain improvement”, Specialist

Schools and Academies Trust• Harris, A and Goodall, J (2008) 'Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning', Educational Research, Vol

50: No 3, pages 277 - 289• Harris, A., Ghent, K. & Goodall, J. (2008) Beyond Workforce Reform – Raising Achievement London, Specialist Schools and

Academies Trust.• Harris, A. Allen, T and Goodall, J. (2008) Capturing Transformation: How Schools Sustain Transformation, London, SSAT• Harris, A. and Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement: Do Parents Know They Matter? DCSF-RW004

London, Department for Children and Families.• Harris, A., Goodall, J., "Removing obstacles: achieving inclusive approach to parental engagement", Curriculum Briefing, 5:1,

pg. 17 - 19.• Goodall, J. and Day, C., (2006). “A route map for CPD”. Professional Development Today. 9:2. 43 - 45• Harris, A., Day, C., Goodall, J., Lindsay, G. and Muijs, D. (2006). "What difference does it make? Continuing Professional

Development in Schools." Scottish Journal of Educational Research 37: 90 - 98.• Goodall, J., Day, C., et al. (2005). Evaluating Impact of Continuing Professional Development. London, Department for

Education and Skills.


• Goodall, J., Montgomery, C., (In Press), Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum, Educational Review • Goodall, J., Goodall, K., Williams, E., "Pagan prayer and worship: a qualitative study of perceptions"(Submitted to

Pomegranate, under review).• Goodall, J. (In Press - 2013). "Parental Belief and Parental Engagement: How Do They Interact?" The Journal of Beliefs and

Values 34.• Goodall, J. (2013) “Recruit for attitude, train for skills: Creating high performing leadership teams”. Educational, Management

and Leadership, 41.2• Goodall, J. (2012) Parental Engagement to Support Children’s Learning: A Six Point Model, School Leadership and

Management• Goodall, J., and Williams, E., (2012) "Paradigmatic Brilliance: Or, So Sparkly It's Broken", Journal of Dracula Studies• Goodall, J., and Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department of Education• Hargreaves, A., Harris,A. Boyle,A. Ghent, K Goodall,J. and. Gurn.A (2011). Performance Beyond Expectations. London:

National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services and Specialist Schools and Academies Trust .• Goodall, J., (2010) “Superstition and Human Agency”, Implicit Religion, Vol 13, No. 3 • Chapman, Lindsay, Muijis, Harris, Arweck, Goodall, (2010), “Governance, leadership, and management in federations of

schools”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 21, No. 1, pgs 53 - 74• Harris, A., Goodall, J., (2009), “Helping Families Support Children’s Success at School; Review of the evidence” Save the

Children• Harris, A., Allen, A., Goodall, J. (2008) “Capturing Transformation: How schools secure and sustain improvement”, Specialist

Schools and Academies Trust• Harris, A and Goodall, J (2008) 'Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning', Educational Research, Vol 50:

No 3, pages 277 - 289• Harris, A., Ghent, K. & Goodall, J. (2008) Beyond Workforce Reform – Raising Achievement London, Specialist Schools and

Academies Trust.• Harris, A. Allen, T and Goodall, J. (2008) Capturing Transformation: How Schools Sustain Transformation, London, SSAT• Harris, A. and Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement: Do Parents Know They Matter? DCSF-RW004

London, Department for Children and Families.• Harris, A., Goodall, J., "Removing obstacles: achieving inclusive approach to parental engagement", Curriculum Briefing, 5:1,

pg. 17 - 19.• Goodall, J. and Day, C., (2006). “A route map for CPD”. Professional Development Today. 9:2. 43 - 45• Harris, A., Day, C., Goodall, J., Lindsay, G. and Muijs, D. (2006). "What difference does it make? Continuing Professional

Development in Schools." Scottish Journal of Educational Research 37: 90 - 98.• Goodall, J., Day, C., et al. (2005). Evaluating Impact of Continuing Professional Development. London, Department for

Education and Skills.


My experience of co-authorship

• Maximum I’ve worked with – 6 co-authors• More usual – two or three• Generally good experience


How does co-authorship begin?

• Various ways…– Joint research– Joint idea– Asking for help

• How do you find co-authors?– Depends on culture - I’m writing with one of my

PhD students, a colleague is writing with an MA student

– Have written with my boss, my colleagues, ex-colleagues, my daughter

– Formal and informal approaches


Finding co-authors

• Why do you want/need a co-author?– More experienced at writing, placing articles– Share the work of writing– Share the thinking– It was a shared idea in the first place– It was shared research

• Why might you not want co-author?– Shared prestige - REF– Concerns about whether or not you can write on your own– Prefer to work on your own


Finding co-authors

• Involved in the research• Joint idea• Others….

– Conferences– Panels (NIACE)


Someone approaches you

1. Allow yourself to feel flattered!

2. Then ask – “why me”?

1. Do you have the time?

2. What do you stand to gain? What do you stand to lose (see question about time)


Working with a co author

• There is no such thing as equality of load• What there is, is equity

– You will not do the same amount of work– You need, though, to be sure that there is some

sort of equity – that both of you are AUTHORS– (Otherwise, just thank someone in the paper!)


Co-authorship is professional practice

• Treat it in the same professional manner you treat the rest of your work

• It can be very enjoyable, you may be writing with friends

• But the WRITING is still a professional activity– Treat it that way from the outset and save

yourself a world of work and issues…


Examples of co-authorship

• Shared research– Probably most equitable– Papers go back and forth– Everyone has their own expertise

• My idea that I don’t know enough about– I am a qualitative researcher, and I work closely with a quantitative

researcher– We publish in both kinds of journals– I read his quant. articles, he reads my qual. articles on the shared

research, and are both named authors– But I don’t do stats and he doesn’t do thematic analysis of open

questions!


Responding to referees

• Not everything every referee says is correct (or even sane…).– But all need a polite, reasoned response

• Treat this as you treated the paper – work on specific parts, have deadlines

• Work on the response to the reviewers in the same way

• Ensure everyone is happy BEFORE resubmission


Tips for co authorship

1. Make no assumptions – have everything clear – you will do X, I will do Y

2. Have clear deadlines – I will get this back to you by X, you will read and get it back to me by Y

– Allow for slippage, because it will happen


Version control

• NUMBER versions of papers – Qual article v 1, v2– Put this in the footer– Never save over the old paper, create new

version (because you are bound to want to go back to a previous version for something, at some point)

– Track changes• You can work with the final version showing• But keep the changes tracked• These may be necessary for re-submission


How long does it take?

• Gains in time from co-authorship– External deadlines– Shared workload

• Downsides in terms of time– Waiting for your co-author to do their bit– The more co-authors there are, the longer this

can take

• Overall – sometimes longer, sometimes not• Sometimes, would not be written without co-author


Coordination

• Decide AT THE OUTSET if someone will drive the process

• In a research team, this is likely to be the PI (or someone delegated)

• Back to being professional about the process


First author

• Sometimes decided by discipline – professor always goes first or last

• Sometimes decided by who is the PI on the research

• Sometimes decided alphabetically• Sometimes decided by who did the most work


Authoring articles in general: tips!

• Polish your research by presenting a paper at a conference first.• When writing for top journals, you are writing for an international

audience so remember to explain the context.• Peer reviewers comments: do nothing in response for a few days!• May find it difficult to reconcile opposing reviewers’ comments, or

believe them to be wrong. Address the points they make, eg by saying “It can be said that…, however this work is not intended to address that matter”

• May wish to submit to a different journal rather than re-submitting, if the changes required are heavy.


Vitae advice - http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/PGR_Tips_authorship_72.pdf • Discuss authorship from the beginning of any project• Be prepared for things to change: more people may be involved &

therefore named.• Who will be first author? Joint first authorship? Corresponding

author? Last named author as head of research group?• Be realistic about your contribution• Keep in touch after you have moved on• Consider acknowledgements

http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/PGR_Tips_authorship_72.pdf




Versions toolkit: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/VERSIONS_Toolkit_v1_final.pdf

LSE guide to impact in soc sciences:

…includes evidence that co-authorship leads to higher no.s of citations, in Chapter 4

and advice on external partnerships, in Chapter 5

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/VERSIONS_Toolkit_v1_final.pdf




Responding to peer review comments

• Williams, Hywel C. (2004) How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51 (1). pp. 79-83. ONLINE AT: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/859/

• 3 golden rules: – (1) respond completely; – (2) respond politely; and – (3) respond with evidence.

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/859/


Copyright & Author agreements

• JISC Model “Licence to Publish” (if - http://copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox/authors/licence/

• Creative Commons (if publishing online yourself )- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

• Publisher Agreements on SherpaRomeo - http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

• Indemnity clauses: nothing the author has written is libellous / infringes IPR / is contempt of court.

• The law is NOT Yes/no, black/white!!!

http://copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox/authors/licence/

http://copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox/authors/licence/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/


Tools – (agree on process & tools!)

• A shared Endnote library for citations?• MS Word’s “track changes” & comments features for editing?• Email attachments for sharing?• Keep notes about major revisions, to track contributions.• File-name conventions, storage of drafts & back-up.

• Google Docs: you can all work on a document at the same time. (NB Zoho and Buzzword are alternatives)

• Mendeley Groups• ResearchGate Projects• A wiki? Video conferencing?• A face to face meeting! At which stage of the process?

Co authorship and attribution

Career

Transcript of Co authorship and attribution