531699 research-article2014
WJNXXX10.1177/0193945914531699Western Journal of Nursing ResearchEditorial
Editorial
What Coauthors Wish Lead Authors Knew
Western Journal of Nursing Research 2015, Vol. 37(2) 131–133 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0193945914531699 wjn.sagepub.com
If you consider how academic publishing has evolved, you may notice that sole-authored articles have become less common over time as a greater proportion of articles are team-authored. The advantages of team authoring are apparent. Also obvious is the potential for new challenges in managing a band of professionals, each with their own background and viewpoint. In this issue, we will consider the perspective of both the lead and coauthor in team science. The Western Journal of Nursing Research Editorial Board Special Article in this issue addresses strategies for lead authors to effectively manage coauthors. This editorial is written from the perspective of coauthors. First, lead authors should consider long-term goals and recognize that coauthorship is just one component of team science. The process of involving coinvestigators in developing manuscripts is a significant aspect of building a lasting research team, extending beyond the production of a specific article. Thus, principles of team building such as supporting open communication, valuing diverse opinions, respecting team members’ multiple roles, and so forth are important components of manuscript development. The experience of successfully creating a team manuscript may then generalize to more effective and efficient team science in future projects. Coauthors are there to participate in manuscript development, not get a free entry in their vitae. Ideally, lead authors and coauthors have explicit discussions regarding the nature of such contributions. Despite the “author” moniker, not everyone needs to write sections of the manuscript if he or she makes other intellectual contributions to creating the project or developing the ideas in the papers. Lead authors should understand that coauthor roles may vary depending on the specialty of the coauthor in the overall project. For example, the principal investigator of grant-funded research may expect more influence on manuscripts as a coauthor than coauthors who had a more limited role in designing and implementing a study. As the researcher at the forefront of the manuscript-writing process, the lead author is responsible for keeping coauthors informed about authorship requirements at intended journals if these variations affect authorship. For example, while some journals require that coauthors approve the final draft of the manuscript, others require
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 8, 2015
132
Western Journal of Nursing Research 37(2)
that all authors be willing to take public responsibility of the entire paper. Lead authors should be careful about selecting journals that limit the number of authors if the authorship team includes more than the allowable number of authors. When roles are being discussed in the beginning of the manuscript process, keep in mind that certain tasks are uncommon for coauthors to handle. Most coauthors do not expect to edit manuscripts, unless prior arrangements have verified this role. Similarly, most coauthors do not expect to format manuscripts, with the common exception that statistical coinvestigators may be the most qualified to draft manuscript tables. Once individual duties have been assigned, coauthors need early information about the timing of their contributions. While a particular manuscript may be the main priority of the lead author for several weeks, coauthors undoubtedly have other higher priorities. Coauthors applaud a lead author who discusses and plans contributions far in advance of deadlines. A lead author who considers coauthors’ competing demands is more likely to receive valuable input from coauthors and to build interest in continued commitment to team endeavors. Open communication continues as the manuscript is constructed and submitted. Coauthors expect to be involved in the revision of manuscript based on journal review when their area of expertise is needed to make revisions. However, coauthors realize their knowledge is generally not needed for the requests for clarification common in peer-reviewers’ comments. If the lead decides to forgo one’s major suggestions for the manuscript, such as the addition or deletion of a table, additional analyses, or a major theme in interpreting findings, the coauthor deserves information about the rationale behind the decision. Coauthors should receive open statements of changes in the order of authorship. Such changes should be explained by a description of those contributions. Everyone should also understand that the order of authorship to reflect contributions may vary by discipline and also by regional cultural norms. For example, while many nurses consider the first author position to be most prominent, in some areas of basic science, the last author position is reserved for the author directing the laboratory where the research was conducted. In some countries, the last author position is considered most desirable. The removal of a potential coauthor after the project has started is a serious matter that the lead should involve a deliberation of the options. In the event that a coauthor is under consideration for removal, the lead author should hold a discussion of the rationale among all the authors. Lead authors should never drop coauthors without discussion with the team. Lead authors
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 8, 2015
133
Editorial
should understand that annoying a coauthor may harm potential future projects. Also, lead authors should be understanding of coauthors who need to withdraw due to competing demands on their time. Coauthors may change their mind about contributing to particular manuscripts. Unless such a change would present a hardship to the lead author or misrepresent intellectual contributions, the lead author would be wise to allow these changes. Sometimes, a coauthor simply has too many other commitments at the time the lead author is requesting comments on a manuscript. A change in manuscript direction may also influence coauthor willingness to participate as an author. Lead authors should understand that potential coauthors may base decisions about participating in manuscripts on their own professional goals, such as moving forward for promotion. Another type of authorship change is if the lead feels the need to step down. It sometimes becomes impossible for lead authors to continue their lead role in manuscript development. Lead authors should not assume a coauthor will move to lead author. A dialogue among authors can determine whether any of the coauthors are able and willing to assume the leadership role. As professionals, coauthors in a team are eager to utilize their experiences in crafting published articles. Lead authors who consider the perspectives and needs of coauthors are more likely to produce stellar manuscripts and build team science, leading to meaningful research. Vicki S. Conn, PhD, RN, FAAN Editor University of Missouri
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 8, 2015
WJNXXX10.1177/0193945914531699Western Journal of Nursing ResearchEditorial
Editorial
What Coauthors Wish Lead Authors Knew
Western Journal of Nursing Research 2015, Vol. 37(2) 131–133 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0193945914531699 wjn.sagepub.com
If you consider how academic publishing has evolved, you may notice that sole-authored articles have become less common over time as a greater proportion of articles are team-authored. The advantages of team authoring are apparent. Also obvious is the potential for new challenges in managing a band of professionals, each with their own background and viewpoint. In this issue, we will consider the perspective of both the lead and coauthor in team science. The Western Journal of Nursing Research Editorial Board Special Article in this issue addresses strategies for lead authors to effectively manage coauthors. This editorial is written from the perspective of coauthors. First, lead authors should consider long-term goals and recognize that coauthorship is just one component of team science. The process of involving coinvestigators in developing manuscripts is a significant aspect of building a lasting research team, extending beyond the production of a specific article. Thus, principles of team building such as supporting open communication, valuing diverse opinions, respecting team members’ multiple roles, and so forth are important components of manuscript development. The experience of successfully creating a team manuscript may then generalize to more effective and efficient team science in future projects. Coauthors are there to participate in manuscript development, not get a free entry in their vitae. Ideally, lead authors and coauthors have explicit discussions regarding the nature of such contributions. Despite the “author” moniker, not everyone needs to write sections of the manuscript if he or she makes other intellectual contributions to creating the project or developing the ideas in the papers. Lead authors should understand that coauthor roles may vary depending on the specialty of the coauthor in the overall project. For example, the principal investigator of grant-funded research may expect more influence on manuscripts as a coauthor than coauthors who had a more limited role in designing and implementing a study. As the researcher at the forefront of the manuscript-writing process, the lead author is responsible for keeping coauthors informed about authorship requirements at intended journals if these variations affect authorship. For example, while some journals require that coauthors approve the final draft of the manuscript, others require
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 8, 2015
132
Western Journal of Nursing Research 37(2)
that all authors be willing to take public responsibility of the entire paper. Lead authors should be careful about selecting journals that limit the number of authors if the authorship team includes more than the allowable number of authors. When roles are being discussed in the beginning of the manuscript process, keep in mind that certain tasks are uncommon for coauthors to handle. Most coauthors do not expect to edit manuscripts, unless prior arrangements have verified this role. Similarly, most coauthors do not expect to format manuscripts, with the common exception that statistical coinvestigators may be the most qualified to draft manuscript tables. Once individual duties have been assigned, coauthors need early information about the timing of their contributions. While a particular manuscript may be the main priority of the lead author for several weeks, coauthors undoubtedly have other higher priorities. Coauthors applaud a lead author who discusses and plans contributions far in advance of deadlines. A lead author who considers coauthors’ competing demands is more likely to receive valuable input from coauthors and to build interest in continued commitment to team endeavors. Open communication continues as the manuscript is constructed and submitted. Coauthors expect to be involved in the revision of manuscript based on journal review when their area of expertise is needed to make revisions. However, coauthors realize their knowledge is generally not needed for the requests for clarification common in peer-reviewers’ comments. If the lead decides to forgo one’s major suggestions for the manuscript, such as the addition or deletion of a table, additional analyses, or a major theme in interpreting findings, the coauthor deserves information about the rationale behind the decision. Coauthors should receive open statements of changes in the order of authorship. Such changes should be explained by a description of those contributions. Everyone should also understand that the order of authorship to reflect contributions may vary by discipline and also by regional cultural norms. For example, while many nurses consider the first author position to be most prominent, in some areas of basic science, the last author position is reserved for the author directing the laboratory where the research was conducted. In some countries, the last author position is considered most desirable. The removal of a potential coauthor after the project has started is a serious matter that the lead should involve a deliberation of the options. In the event that a coauthor is under consideration for removal, the lead author should hold a discussion of the rationale among all the authors. Lead authors should never drop coauthors without discussion with the team. Lead authors
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 8, 2015
133
Editorial
should understand that annoying a coauthor may harm potential future projects. Also, lead authors should be understanding of coauthors who need to withdraw due to competing demands on their time. Coauthors may change their mind about contributing to particular manuscripts. Unless such a change would present a hardship to the lead author or misrepresent intellectual contributions, the lead author would be wise to allow these changes. Sometimes, a coauthor simply has too many other commitments at the time the lead author is requesting comments on a manuscript. A change in manuscript direction may also influence coauthor willingness to participate as an author. Lead authors should understand that potential coauthors may base decisions about participating in manuscripts on their own professional goals, such as moving forward for promotion. Another type of authorship change is if the lead feels the need to step down. It sometimes becomes impossible for lead authors to continue their lead role in manuscript development. Lead authors should not assume a coauthor will move to lead author. A dialogue among authors can determine whether any of the coauthors are able and willing to assume the leadership role. As professionals, coauthors in a team are eager to utilize their experiences in crafting published articles. Lead authors who consider the perspectives and needs of coauthors are more likely to produce stellar manuscripts and build team science, leading to meaningful research. Vicki S. Conn, PhD, RN, FAAN Editor University of Missouri
Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 8, 2015
